DZ
DefZone.Net

Kien thuc cong nghe & giai tri

Wiki Article

Talk:Zionism

Nguồn dữ liệu từ Wikipedia, hiển thị bởi DefZone.Net

Xem trên WikipediaBài ngẫu nhiên khác

RFC: Zionists saying Zionism is Colonialism

[edit]

How should we describe how proponents of Zionism characterised their project?

  • Option A: "Various proponents of Zionism have characterized it as colonial or settler-colonial" (status quo)
  • Option B: "Early proponents of Zionism characterized it as colonial"
  • Option C: "Early Zionists described their activities in Palestine in ways that now correspond to academic descriptions of colonialism or settler colonialism."
  • Option D: "Until the mid-20th century, Zionists used terminology related to 'colonization' when referring to immigration and settlement efforts in Palestine"
  • Option E: Some other way of wording this (please specify your exact wording).
  • Option F: Remove this sentence entirely: "Various proponents of Zionism have characterized ..." while keeping the next two sentences as is, as seen in the current version of the article[2]

For prior related discussion see:

TarnishedPathtalk 01:24, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Polling (Zionists saying Zionism is Colonialism)

[edit]
  • F. A and B are not found in the sources. They are also anachronistic: its just straight up misleading to imply that, when they spoke of colonization, Zionists were invoking (or even aware of) the concept of "colonialism" as scholars today write about it. C is synth; no one has given a source for it. D is true but would clearly be out of place here in the article (this is a paragraph about Massad and others portraying Zionism as colonialism, not colonization). Therefore its best to remove this sentence. A more full exploration of Zionists' self-characterization can be given elsewhere. The context of this subsection is a reading of Zionism as colonial by certain scholars, and not how Zionists characterized themselves. See here for how the rest of this paragraph should be reworded, in line with what Massad actually wrote. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 01:36, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Some background to this edit in diffs: [correction—11:06, 27 April 2026 (UTC)]
    23 December 2024
    The sentence Zionism's founders and early leaders described Zionism as colonization, including Theodor Herzl, Max Nordau, and Ze'ev Jabotinsky was added with no references.
    31 December 2024
    This unsourced content is removed with the edit summary "there's probably a good way to work something along these lines into this section with ref to a secondary source. but just deleting it for now". (See Fiveby's backwards accusation below).
    3 January 2025
    In its same place, the sentence Through history various proponents of Zionism have characterized Zionism as colonial or settler-colonial is added. References are given, but only one of them uses the word "colonial"; none "settler-colonial". And the one that uses "colonial" is from a mistranslation of Burg, who actually wrote "un Etat qui développe des colonies", and in the English version "a state of settlements".
    Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 13:08, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a strawman. It's not what we are discussing now. TarnishedPathtalk 14:25, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Misusing logical fallacies is perhaps a worse crime than the piss-poor provenance of this edit. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 14:33, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A -> Option C -> Option D -> Option B. Early Zionists explicitly spoke of their project of settling Palestine in terms of a colonial model. Many modern studies interpret this in terms of the concept of settler-colonialism. Demanding that the term appear verbatim in early Zionist writing before it can be used is a category error, it confuses a 21st-century analytical framework with a 19th-century political programme. Zionists could no more have used the phrase than Darwin would have used "evolution" in his early works. TarnishedPathtalk 01:43, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Doesn’t “Many modern studies interpret—“ require us to attribute this interpretation in the text? BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:27, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    No. TarnishedPathtalk 13:08, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. WP:NPOV: "Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that genocide is an evil action but may state that genocide has been described by John So-and-so as the epitome of human evil". Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 13:12, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Importantly it states "Avoid ..." and not "Do not ...". Secondly, I don't think I suggested putting “Many modern studies interpret ..." into the article. TarnishedPathtalk 21:01, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    ? Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 21:09, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    You've actually managed to shock me with this response. "It says avoid stating opinions as facts, not avoid it completely." Slava570 (talk) 21:10, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that this is the spirit of the law. NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 21:26, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    No because I wasn't proposing to add “Many modern studies interpret ..." anyway. TarnishedPathtalk 21:37, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    And for what reason were you planning on withholding this crucial information from the reader? Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 21:39, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    "Some studies said" is usually inappropriate for an encyclopedia, except when you're trying to draw a contrast (Some said X; others said not-X). It is often used as a sort of boosterism (My POV has studies that support it. That means it's more academically correct than your POV, which only has opinions behind it.) See WP:MEDSAY for our advice in a different subject area.
    One might also wonder what sort of "studies" are relevant. (Does one run repeated experiments to see what percentage develop into settler-colonialism?) Perhaps "Many authors interpret" would be more accurate than "Many studies". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:56, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Cf WP:SERIOUSLYCONTESTED BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:24, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    New shortcut: WP:OPINION. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 16:59, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    See also Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Assert facts, not opinions, which explains the short bullet point you've linked to. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:57, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • F per Wh1pla5h99. Riposte97 (talk) 04:38, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • In order of preference: D (or similar wording) as accurate, neutral and strongly supported by the current sources and all those proposed in the discussion above > B as less well worded but basically supported by sources and accurately time specific. > Added: E a version of B or D or even A or C followed by something like "Other Zionists rejected this characterization or even saw themselves as anti-colonial" (see source analysis below) > F (deletion, ideally of just this sentence with the following two edited, but of the whole paragraph if necessary) is preferable over an inaccurate sentence. > Oppose C as non-neutral, anachronistic and perhaps synth, but less inaccurate than the status quo. > Strong oppose A as vague, logically impossible and unsupported by any of the cited sources (why the contorted “various proponents of Zionism”? How could they characterise themselves as something that didn’t exist?). While I’m here, can I urge anybody who has not followed this extensive debate to look at the sources presented just below this RFC, and specifically at exactly what variant of colon- words are used, before !voting. BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:50, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you explain how 'C' is not neutral, i can't find any comments about C and NPOV above. Or just tell me i'm going to far in seeing that option as a placeholder for future expansion. fiveby(zero) 14:31, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, seeing your mention of the Granovsky quote, the article might also say:
    • Zionists described their activities in Palestine in ways that do not correspond to today's academic descriptions of colonialism (and sometimes rejected the comparison)
    • Zionists described their activities in Palestine in ways that now correspond to academic descriptions anti-colonialism
    That what you meant by not neutral? fiveby(zero) 18:51, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
By non-neutral I meant it adds an ideological veneer to the interpretation and that is the only purpose it seems to serve, instead of giving a neutral account of how Zionists described themselves. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:30, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • B - per Masalha 2012, p.2; Morris 2008, p.3; Jabotinsky 1923, pp.6–7; Liu 2022, p.190; Bar-Yosef 2012, pp.100–101; Nordau & Gottheil 1905, p.30; Massad 2006, pp.14–18. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 08:52, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option C With B being a close second choice. Followed by A. Would not countenance F in the slightest as it seems remarkably badly supported by sources. Simonm223 (talk) 11:44, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    How on earth can removing the sentence be badly supported by sources. Still haven't seen a source that says C. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 12:02, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you mean D is badly supported? Samuelshraga (talk) 18:06, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I have added some supporting sources for C in the section below. Apologies for the delay. My editing is far more minimal on the weekend and principally mobile. Simonm223 (talk) 11:55, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • F = D > B, D is the most informative/educational, though B is also directly supported by sources. But it just isn't due for the lead. Masalha in her intro appears to be the only one mentioning it in the context of whether Zionism is colonialism, including it here seems undue (though probably interesting to readers). If we were to write an article from scratch, just following best practices ie. collecting some best sources and starting with the body, imo it'd look very different to its current state. It'd still be highly critical of Zionism to reflect the literature, but not like one giant diatribe or compendium of anti-Zionist rhetoric Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 12:25, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    "B is also directly supported by sources. But it just isn't due for the lead".
    It isn't in the lead. The sentence we are discussing is the first sentence of the second paragraph of the Zionism#European colonialism section. TarnishedPathtalk 12:31, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Mb, IIRC it was in the lead of a late 2024 version. I'll adjust my !vote Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 12:41, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Colonialism and settler-colonialism are included in the lede, but as descriptions of Zionism from critics, not as terms that Zionists themselves have used. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 13:57, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • A -> C -> B -> D. The idea that we are somehow bound by the early Zionists' terminology to describe what any educated reader would understand today doesn't hold much water.

    Every indigenous people will resist alien settlers as long as they see any hope of ridding themselves of the danger of foreign settlement. This is how the Arabs will behave and go on behaving so long as they possess a gleam of hope that they can prevent 'Palestine' from becoming the Land of Israel ... nothing in the world can cause them to relinquish this hope, precisely because they are not a rabble but a living people.... All colonization must continue in defiance of the will of the native population. Therefore, it can continue and develop only under the shield of force which comprises an Iron Wall through which the local population can never break through. _ Ze'ev Jabotinsky (1923)


    Our thought is that the colonisation of Palestine has to go in two directions: Jewish settlement in Eretz Israel and the resettlement of the Arabs of Eretz Israel in areas outside the country. _ Leo Motzkin (1917)

    There is lot more about how they characterised their project, including their notion of "transfer" (euphemism for ethnic cleansing), etc. M.Bitton (talk) 12:54, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    If the sentence begins with "Various proponents of Zionism have characterized it as" should not the remainder of the sentence say how various proponents characterized it? Instead we have a bait-and-switch: [proponents characterized it as] [what present-day opponents characterize it as]. Slava570 (talk) 13:06, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The article already accounts at length for the scholarly opinion that Zionism is colonial. That is not what this sentence is doing, which you well know. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 13:12, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no interest in repeating what was said in the discussions, and since you already bludgeoned those, I suggest you refrain from repeating the same behaviour here. M.Bitton (talk) 13:18, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: M.Bitton is now blocked. I am not sure if their comments are supposed to be struck now NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 00:38, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    No. They should not be struck. Comments are only struck if they were made by a block-evading sockpuppet (that is, if the comments were made in violation of an existing ban or block). SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 01:13, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    A sourced quote from Motzkin (1918):

    The Zionists generally hold the view that the distribution of professions among the Jews is inherently artificial, and they do not wish merely to engage in investigating who is to blame for the historical creation of these conditions; rather, they approach the task of overturning and reshaping these economic conditions anew, out of their own will and on an independent basis. We had hoped indeed that the future would generally change the socio-economic circumstances and mutual human relations, for in any case, the exploitation of man by man shall cease.[1]

    بادهای شمال ❄️ (talk) 19:17, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • F but remove the paragraph and rethink the article's approach to colonialism. I'm going to vote three times tho...
    D probably the most well supported and natural considering the current paragraph. Bit opposed to "mid-20th century", thinking the Arab riots of 20's and 30's were the point where Zionist thought really changed or focused. Minor point tho and could always be changed later if needed.
    C i've rethought this proposal. I don't think we can find a single source which would directly support this, but it is not WP:SYNTH. It is after all why authors point to evidence of Zionist discourse when employing these models. And it is much more than just the occasional usage of 'colonial' or 'settler' as most all the provided quotes seem to be directed towards. It's also about attitudes to the existing population, land and resources, Europe and other colonial projects. I view it as kind of draft initial summary of a more comprehensive paragraph. Awkwardly worded tho and doesn't really lead in to the following sentences. Support as an option for further expansion of the paragraph.
fiveby(zero) 13:19, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If C is not said in the sources, and it is not synthesized from the sources... Is it in the room with us? Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 13:56, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There's a discussion about this now at VP. Synthesis which is not original research is not SYNTH. Could you state in the discussion section if you accept that reasoning? fiveby(zero) 14:10, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 14:25, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:OR: Even with well-sourced material, if one uses it out of context, or to state or imply a conclusion not directly and explicitly supported by the source, one is engaging in original research (emphasis is the policy's, not mine). Since, as you said, I don't think we can find a single source which would directly support this, we both agree that it falls within what the policy describes as original research and is therefore not allowed on Wikipedia. NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 16:26, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Not an invalid criticism, it is certainly an original way to state things, but i don't think an original idea. Find myself departing from WP:BESTSOURCES and looking for any old thing which would directly support this and that's not a good sign. fiveby(zero) 17:09, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • B > D > A > C. Stating that it was early proponents is important because most sources specify that; see eg. Masalha 2012, "Throughout much of the nineteenth and the first half of the twentieth centuries the terms zionist ‘colonisation’ and Jewish ‘colonies’ in Palestine were proudly proclaimed and universally used by zionist leaders and writers". It is also important to understand the context of the next sentence, which seems to be uncontroversial, and which states that Joseph Massad wrote that, for political and ideological reasons, starting in the 1930s, some Zionist thinkers proposed that the Zionist movement should avoid using terms related to colonialism. The sources presented for removal largely do not actually contradict this because they are Zionists after that time period disclaiming the term. Of the various options, "various" in the current version is vague and awkward; and I feel "colonial or settler-colonial" is too awkward and nit-picky for the paragraph's intro sentence (if we need to clarify the distinction we can do it deeper in the paragraph.) Option B most straightforwardly summarizes the existing sources without contradicting them. Option D says something similar but with more words and is also acceptable, if not as clean. Option C is technically correct but extremely awkward; I think it is a summary, not synthesis, and that it's reasonable as a summary-sentence, although it would probably require more detail in the rest of the paragraph... but my main objection to it is just that it's really awkward wording. And I just don't think total removal is reasonable given the sourcing (especially given the next sentence, which is premised on the idea that they were using it until that point!) --Aquillion (talk) 15:39, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The sources presented for removal largely do not actually contradict this because they are Zionists after that time period disclaiming the term Note that the sources currently cited for removal (other than Penslar) are Ben-Gurion and Szold's quotes, the former of which came after that time (1939) and the latter prior. NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 16:29, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Arguing that it should be kept because the next sentence is premised on it is deeply flawed if the premise is in error. Why would you deliberately build a house on sand? If necessary just reword what follows, for example like so. Also there is no such need to present sources for removal - you have it the wrong way round. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 17:01, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • B, basically per Aquillion, who (as usual) makes the most cogent argument. Colonialism is not a modern concept, although it has taken on a more laden meaning in the modern era. C is convoluted, while A still requires time travel.Katzrockso (talk) 22:58, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    If A requires time travel then what do we use Armenian genocide to refer to a genocide that predates the coining of the word "genocide"? Also, isn't option C supposed to deal with that perceived issue? M.Bitton (talk) 23:10, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Because that title reflects how scholars today call it, unlike option A, which is talking about how Zionists talked about themselves. NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 23:14, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    how Zionists talked about themselves is not synonymous with "how they characterised Zionism". M.Bitton (talk) 23:16, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    A and C are basically the same except that C makes it clear that we are talking about modern definitions and A leaves the question of whether they used these words open. It can be reasonably understood from A that proponents of Zionism used these words themselves. If you believe they did not, then option C is the best match for your opinion. NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 23:26, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    It can be reasonably understood.. I disagree. One can characterise or describe something without using any specific word.
    Another example: in the Antisemitism in Christianity article, we have Antisemitism in popular European Christian culture escalated beginning in the 13th century. By your logic, not only can we not say that (as that would require time travel), but we should also remove everything that predates the coining of the word "antisemitism" from the article about "antisemitism". M.Bitton (talk) 23:32, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I call straw man here. This is a totally different construction from what we're talking about here. An accurate comparison would be 13th-century European Christians characterized their views of Jews as antisemitism, which is just as blatantly false as the sentence you're attempting to stonewall into this article. Any reasonable person would read A to mean that Zionists used the terms "colonial" and "settler colonial". "Characterize" is a synonym of "call", and the definition of call, per Merriam Webster, is to speak of or address by a specified name. Pushing for the false A in place of even the more descriptive and unambiguous C is, to say the least, exceedingly disingenuous, or, to be more blunt, POV-pushing. Your bludgeoning and straw men about antisemitism and the Armenian genocide mean nothing because we aren't saying anyone is describing, in the moment, the Armenian genocide or medieval antisemitism as genocide or antisemitism. Let's use facts and realities instead of trying to add meanings to words that do not exist. For the record, I stand neutral in this RFC apart from my opposition to A. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 00:46, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's use facts.. yes, let's.
    "Characterize" is a synonym of "call" according to which dictionary? M.Bitton (talk) 00:51, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Sealion all you want. Let's go with [3]. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 01:11, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not a dictionary. Here's what a dictionary looks like.[4][5][6] M.Bitton (talk) 01:15, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    fiveby(zero) 01:12, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    We're interested in the meaning of "characterise". M.Bitton (talk) 01:21, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we all know the meaning of characterize and call. Slava570 (talk) 01:27, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what I assumed when I said One can characterise or describe something without using any specific word. M.Bitton (talk) 01:43, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Now that we've got everything figured out regarding "characterize" vs. "call" (i.e. that they are synonyms), would you like to respond to my other points? Conversely, if you can provide a source that compares the meanings of the two words and determines that "characterize" can mean "to describe something, but in our words, not the describer's", then I will gladly reconsider my comment. Perhaps one can characterize or describe something without using any specific word, but do you honestly think everyone will assume it to mean that? In the meantime, what's your reasoning that A, which unquestionably introduces ambiguity, is preferable to C, which can (probably) be supported by sources and aligns with your assumed POV? 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:09, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    No, they are no synonymous in the same that we're referring to (see the meaning of "characterize" in the listed dictionaries).
    You mean to tell me that you can't "characterise" (describe) an editor as a sockpuppeteer without "calling" (labelling) them as such? M.Bitton (talk) 12:55, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again, your analogy is poor, as "colonization" (the term used by Zionists) is not a synonym for "colonialism" nor it is a synonym for "settler colonialism" (most colonization is not settler colonialism regardless of whether Zionism is or not), while "sockmaster", "editor with socks", and "sockpuppeteer" are all synonyms. On your point about dictionaries, we can agree that "characterize" is a synonym of "describe", right? ([7]) The definition here of "describe" is ([8]) If a person describes someone or something as a particular thing, he or she believes that they are that thing and says so. You are correct that we aren't bound to the exact terminology, but we are bound by synonymy: we can certainly state (as you do below in your reply to Bobfrombrockley) that the context to the words used by Zionists places it in the modern framework of colonialism and settler colonialism. That's not an unreasonable argument. But that option is C, not A.
    But once again, you are pettily sealioning about semantics instead of responding to the actual points and backing up your reasoning. Care to do so? 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 13:32, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me rephrase the question:
    Can you "characterise" (describe) something as X without "calling" (labelling) it as such? A yes or no will do. M.Bitton (talk) 14:09, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but only if they are synonymous. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 14:22, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a yes/no question. M.Bitton (talk) 14:28, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Hence my inclusion of the word "yes" (wikt:yes). You have repeatedly dodged my points, presumably because they are correct and pertinent, and that acknowledging them would disadvantage your POV, which you have repeatedly demonstrated ambition to push in articles across Wikipedia, placing such POV-pushing above civility, respect, collaboration, and basic human values of kindness and collegiality. You have sealioned and gaslighted to the point of trolling, attempting to derail discussions that don't seem to be going your way without conceding even an inch. You have bludgeoned to the point that your signature appears over 100 times in this talk page as of this writing, and thousands more in the archives of this page and other PIA-related pages. I'm going to give credit where credit is due: you're a master at bludgeoning discussions into oblivion, hence how this sentence even entered this article. I still hold out hope that you may yet acknowledge that your POV is not above the building of an encyclopedia and a collaborative editing environment. I know that on the internet, when passionate about a topic, it's hard to let go or concede at all, or even to respect the person on the other side. I've been guilty of that many times myself – we all have. I know that you're a human being who joined this website to build an encyclopedia. I know you've written good articles, and you're a valuable contributor. But the environment our arguing is creating in these articles is toxic beyond belief. Could all of us maybe try and collaboratively write these articles together (anyone want to improve Zionism to GA?), following NPOV, without pointless RFCs over sentences and words, and the constant reporting of one another to AE? Come on. We're human beings who are trying to build an encyclopedia of human knowledge. Can we all try to do that instead of arguing for the sake of changing or keeping one sentence in the body of one article? We all have civility, respect, kindness, and collegiality in us. Can we bring that out instead of the 600KB of arguing? 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 14:46, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Since it's a yes, then there is no reason to cast doubts on option A. All's well that ends well. M.Bitton (talk) 14:50, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)@M.Bitton: When you're banned from Wikipedia in a couple of days after the conclusion of the Maghreb case, maybe consider that if you had even pretended to consider my sincere and heartfelt comment, that the arbs might have changed their minds and allowed you to edit Wikipedia, or at least to present your case. I don't know what I should have expected from you in response to my comment, but as you had nothing to lose and everything to gain by dropping the POV warrior behavior, I would think that you'd at least consider it to further your editing career. Never mind. Either you're a POV-pusher through and through, or you just act like that on Wikipedia, in which case there's no functional difference to us. The second part of my comment still stands to TarnishedPath, Bobfrombrockley, Samuelshraga, SuperPianoMan9167, Wh1pla5h99, Slava570, Smallangryplanet, Kowal, Cdjp1, Fiveby, Simonm223, and any other editors interested in creating an encyclopedia with good articles in the PIA topic area. I hope if you ever decide you want to appeal, that something I said in my comment gets to you, but I suspect it's false hope. Apologies if these pleads got me over the 1000 word limit. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 15:03, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:DENY @Chicdat. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 14:30, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    You would have a point if our articles said “Turkish nationalists characterised Turkish nationalism as genocidal” or “early Christians characterised Christianity as antisemitic”. But we don’t, for obvious reasons. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:07, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    They didn't, unlike the Zionists who described their project in terms that any educated person would understand as "settler colonialism". M.Bitton (talk) 12:58, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    terms that any educated person would understand as "settler colonialism". Evidently not, as showcased by the disagreement on this talk page. You already said this above; repeating it without any additional argument is a proof by assertion, which is not convincing. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 13:15, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • E If we’re going to talk about how proponents characterized Zionism, then we should talk about how proponents characterized Zionism, not opponents. I would be fine with adding another sentence about how opponents characterized Zionism later in the paragraph. Any version of this sentence, which is taken almost verbatim from the lead, with the three sources already there (which I'm assuming support the statement) (Troen 2007, Aaronson 1996, Cohen 2011), followed by D.
Until the mid-20th century, advocates of Zionism viewed it as a national liberation movement for the repatriation of an indigenous people to the homeland of their ancestors. Zionists used terminology related to 'colonization' when referring to immigration and settlement efforts in Palestine.
Settlement should wikilink to human settlement
Some sources for D provided by NorthernWinds.
Second choice: D
Third: F
I highly object to A, as it's anachronistic and apparently based on the idea that "call" and "characterize" are not synonyms. It’s pure mental gymnastics. Slava570 (talk) 12:41, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
which is taken almost verbatim from the lead except it factually isn't. As the lede does not discuss proponents and their characterisation of Zionism in relation to colonialism or settler-colonialism. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:06, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's from the fourth paragraph. If that's not considered the lead, then sorry about the confusion. It does discuss repatriation. Isn't that what colonization meant in this context, in the eyes of many, if not most proponents of Zionism at the time? Going back to their homeland and setting up colonies, or settlements? This is not the same thing as colonialism or settler colonialism, as there is no mother country. Slava570 (talk) 23:17, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • B > A = C = D. B best represents the sources, D understates them (because early Zionists didn't merely use colonization terminology, they viewed Zionism as a colonizing venture and sought to emulate European colonialism). Having read sources, I find F unviable – given the scholarly discussion, we have to say something.VR (Please ping on reply) 19:58, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Jabotinksy said "Zionism is a colonizing venture", and then sources note how he advocated for violence similar to other European colonization. Theodor Herzl and Moses Hess didn't use those exact words, as far as I can tell, but scholars who have read their writings believe that both of them saw Zionism as a variant of European colonialism. Abed-Rabbo says (small quote given below, but you really have to read his whole paper) Herzl saw Zionism as a "colonial scheme to colonize a non-European land". As evidence, he does cite Herzl using terms like "colonists" (as well as names of organizations like Jewish Colonisation Association, Palestine Jewish Colonization Association, Jewish Colonial Trust etc), but his bigger argument rests on Herzl modelling Zionism on other European colonization. For Moses Hess, Newton says (in his analysis of Edward Said's essay) that Hess "equated colonizing Palestine with colonialism more generally". The evidence he points to includes Hess using terms like "Jewish colonies" as well as Hess himself portraying Jewish settlement in Palestine similar to European colonization of the New World. Chaim Weizmann apparently referred to "the whole Zionist enterprise as "colonization"" (haven't read the whole source). Penslar says World Zionist Organization "overtly emulated" European colonization, not just because of it how it named its institutions (eg Kolonialbank) but also in how it modelled those institutions based on other colonizing ventures. Joseph Massad writes (some quotes in section above) that both early Zionists (Herzl, Laharanne, Hess, Palmerston) presented the "project of creating a Jewish State through colonization as part of the European colonizing world". As evidence, he shows their writings viewed Zionism as a means of expanding European civilization. VR (Please ping on reply) 19:58, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
scholars who have read their writings believe that both of them saw Zionism as a variant of European colonialism. Thus it becomes a fact that these clairvoyant Zionists saw themselves as engaged in a concept that did not yet exist? And we can state it unattributed and with total neutrality because of... the psychic powers of these (very likeminded) scholars? Hmmm. How magical. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 20:15, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The concept of colonialism did exist though, well before Zionism was created. To claim it didn't is to claim that the centuries of colonialism, the politics and economics behind the endeavours, and the structures created that were the colonial empires, did not exist. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:09, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Then why didn't they even say the word? You may be engaging in mind reading. Concepts have a life-cycles, and we shouldn't retroject our own concepts into the minds of everyone through history who fit the mould, but rather figure out what they thought. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 21:56, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
So, you do think that prior to the word being used in academia that the processes and structures did not exist. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 10:08, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think that prior to the term being used you can't characterize yourself with that term. Like saying "medieval missionaries characterized their activity as cultural imperialism", or "proponents of the witch trials characterized them as biopolitics". Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 10:42, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that this is true. Settler colonialism existed in the real world before the term was coined. Humans create words to describe already existing facets of reality, but the phenomena exist before the terms are coined. Katzrockso (talk) 23:18, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Colonization in the sense of creating human settlements, or colonies, also existed, and it better describes what proponents of Zionism advocated. According to Colonialism, it is the practice of extending and maintaining political, social, economic, and cultural domination over a territory and its people by another people in pursuit of interests defined in an often distant metropole, who also claim superiority. There is no metropole in this case. Slava570 (talk) 23:27, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That colonialism requires a distinct metropole is not undisputed. Katzrockso (talk) 14:47, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We are writing a sentence about how early Zionists saw themselves. Even if a small number of present day scholars dispute whether there needs to be a metropole, that has no bearing on what they meant when they used the terms colonization or colonial. Slava570 (talk) 15:02, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Herzl naming the organizations "the colonial x" does not mean a lot (per Avineri)
  2. Penslar actually says that Zionism is not colonialism. This quote you've brought talks about colonization.
  3. For Hess, and 'Jewish colonies' see below
The rest of the evidence you have provided only points toward D and not B (since it uses 'colonization' and not 'colonial/colonialism'). Note that Sabbagh-Khoury specifically notes that when Herzl used the term 'colonial', it was included in what she described as "terminology of colonization" so I believe your additional example of Hess can be included in option D. In summary, I find your !vote explanation a compelling argument for D NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 00:45, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • D > B with C and A both being strong oppose. For my explanation on C refer to my comment to Fiveby, for A refer to conversation with Bitton, and for B refer to my comment to Vice Regent. D is best supported by the sources, and I simply do not see any other option being reasonably sourced. Sabbagh-Khoury says that 'terminology of colonization' includes the term 'colonial', so it can be said that option B is actually included in option D, and a closer should take that into consideration when assessing consensus. Herzl's usage of the term is neuanced either way (Avineri, Penslar) and should not be cited for a statement like this. I also think it is the best sentence to open a paragraph on this topic, as it does not limit us to discussing the charectarization of Zionism as "colonial" or "settler colonial". Instead, it will be a good opening for a paragraph discussing the Zionist usage of the terminology as a whole, which I think is the best way to inform the reader. NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 00:59, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Since we were asked to specify sources:
    In regards to the term colonial, the quotes I provided sustain a rejection of the term colonial in the terminology used by Zionists (Borochov, Granovsky, Ben-Gurion, Kaplansky, Katznelson, and Herzl to Nordau). These sources also show how they frequently distinguished their colonization from other colonization enterprises (Buber, Ussishkin, Weizmann, Ruppin, Lilenblum, Ben-Zvi, Greenberg, Tschlenow, Hillel Silver), with some even rejecting the colonization terminology entirely (Kisch, Magnes, Ben-Gurion). Even when specific individuals like Herzl used the colonial label, several scholars added context as to why he did (Avneri, Penslar), and the second quote by Herzl in regards to the Jewish Colonial Bank actually being the Jewish National Bank closes that end. The many scholars we've quoted below point to D. If a handful of scholars (so far we've seen 2 for C, and they speak of 2 proponents, not enough to merit "various") stand in contrast, they should first be checked if fringe, then, if not, have their opinions attributed, perhaps later in a future section dedicated to this. F is also alright in my eyes, a better alternative than A and C. NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 21:07, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • A and C are correct and effectively equivalent from the perspective of modern scholarship. As Arnon Degani from Tel Hai College in Israel explains in The Journal of Israeli History (February 2026) [9], "Zionism, which contained a sovereign claim from its inception, is, in fact, closer to the settler-colonial ideal type" compared to other settler-colonial projects. Degani shows how early Zionists viewed their endeavors according to what modern scholars call settler colonialism. He quotes Ze'ev Jabotinsky,

"My readers have a general idea of the history of colonization in other countries. I suggest that they consider all the precedents with which they are acquainted and see whether there is one solitary instance of any colonization being carried on with the consent of the native population. There is no such precedent."

And Degani then explains,

"As Jabotinsky emphatically argued in the excerpt above, the exceptionalities of Zionism do not alter the simple fact that when European Zionists decided that the solution to the Jewish problem in Europe was found elsewhere on the globe, they also operated within conditions and constraints shared with other settler-colonial endeavors: a formation of a new society or political order distinct from the one that they have left and yet not conforming to the one already present in the land. These circumstances are what led to the clash between Zionists and Palestinian Arabs..."

Degani shows how Theodor Herzl's apparently contradictory views also fit within the settler colonial paradigm, explaining,

"...the existence of these two opposing visions for the indigenous population – deportation and integration – corresponds to two basic strategies available to settler-colonialists in facing their respective indigenous challenges..."

Note that this is the same comment I made in the earlier RfC. Cdjp1 objected there that these quotes don't show early Zionists themselves viewing their endeavors as "settler-colonialism." Degani disagrees, as do other scholars. -Darouet (talk) 05:00, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very good argument for the claim that "many modern scholars see Zionism as colonialism". If only that were what you voted for. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 11:41, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Wh1pla5h99 I disagree, so I emailed Degani about this and he wrote:

...As for your question about using my work in the "Zionism" entry. C would be a more careful and more neutral statement than A. Of course, for me, academics are unable to coherently distinguish colonialism and settler-colonialism. If I were writing it, I would go with something more like this: Early Zionists understood and described their activities in Palestine as comparable to other contemporary projects of European settlement, outside of Europe. These other projects are considered today, without much contention, as either colonialism or settler colonialism.

I am not sure if he meant that this is the correction understanding of this point in his article or just his views in general (which would be WP:OR to add from an email). I will soon follow up asking this exact question. بادهای شمال ❄️ (talk) 17:52, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Degani made his views clearer:

Early Zionists considered Jewish settlement in Palestine as a return to the land of their ancestors; however, when making practical reflections on their project, they understood and described their activities in Palestine as comparable, especially from the point of view of the Arabs, to other contemporary projects of European settlement, outside of Europe. These other projects are considered today, without much contention, as either colonialism or settler colonialism.

I do think that this is reflected in what he said about Jabotinsky's argument in his published article (that is, that when reflecting on its practical aspects, he likened it to other settler colonial movements) NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 20:06, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • E > D > B > F; oppose A and C. My preferred wording would be: Until the mid-20th century, Zionist leaders and writers commonly used terminology related to "colonization" and "colonies" when discussing Jewish immigration and settlement in Palestine; some Zionists distinguished this from, or rejected, colonialism This reflects the sources without overstating them. Masalha directly supports the first half: Throughout much of the nineteenth and the first half of the twentieth centuries the terms Zionist "colonisation" and Jewish "colonies" in Palestine were proudly proclaimed and universally used by Zionist leaders and writers. The quoted material below also supports the qualification: Granot distinguished "colonial policy" from "colonization policy" and wrote that The Jews come to Palestine to execute not a colonial, but a colonization policy; Borochov wrote that this colonization has nothing in common with the politics of colonial conquest, expansion, and exploitation
Option A is too broad and misleading because "characterized it as colonial or settler-colonial" reads as though Zionist proponents themselves used or accepted those analytical labels. The evidence more clearly supports "colonization" terminology, not necessarily "colonialism" or "settler-colonialism" as modern scholarly frameworks. Option C may be defensible as a modern scholarly interpretation, but as phrased it is synthesis unless attributed to specific scholars. If the article wants to discuss modern scholarship describing early Zionist discourse as fitting colonial or settler-colonial models, that should be stated with attribution, not in Wikipedia's voice as a claim about how Zionists characterized their own project. Option D is acceptable but incomplete because it omits the countervailing source material showing that some Zionists explicitly distinguished their project from colonialism. Option B is less precise than D/E, but preferable to A or C.Michael Boutboul (talk) 20:04, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting response, but perhaps your wording would fit better in the colonization and colonialism subsection, rather than replacing this sentence. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 21:00, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Option D can have things added on top of it later NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 21:14, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • ⁠D > F. Option A requires time travel, it's straightforwardly false and the sources don't support it. None of the sources produced for it below seem to support C. I also agree with Bob's comment about its neutrality problem. The problem with B is that it says characterized it as colonial - but the sources - mostly, though not entirely - use other colon- words. The word colonial in B - given the section it's in is "Zionism and colonialism", sub-section "European colonialism" - implies colonialism, when in fact it rests on sources that refer far more often to colonisation. The distinction is one that is made explicitly in the sources (e.g. Granot, Katznelson), so if we elide it in the article we do more to mislead than to inform. D is verifiable, neutral and a better introduction to the following sentences than plain deletion - but deletion is preferable to obvious falsehood (the status quo). Samuelshraga (talk) 11:29, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    But the following sentences are also problematic as Massad never actually said "some Zionist thinkers proposed that the Zionist movement should avoid using terms related to colonialism". Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 11:41, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't looked at the sourcing for the following sentences. I think for simplicity's sake I'll confine my participation at this RfC to this sentence. Afterwards/separately I'm happy to look at other problems. Samuelshraga (talk) 05:10, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Option D because it seems to be the most neutral of the options. Guz13 (talk) 22:11, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • A. The primary objection to this phrasing (that it is anachronistic because the specific phrase "settler-colonial" was not used in the 19th century) misses the intent of the description. The RfC asks how proponents characterized Zionism, which is a question of the nature and logic of their descriptions rather than a requirement for a verbatim word-for-word match. Early Zionists explicitly characterized their project using the language and frameworks of colonization, describing a process of land acquisition and permanent settlement that scholarship identifies as the settler-colonial model. Option A is the most accurate choice because it reflects the full scope of these historical characterizations without the artificial narrowing present in option B. Option C could work as a second choice, but by attempting to solve the perceived anachronism it results in a clunky and indirect phrasing that creates a false distance between the proponents own descriptions and the reality of their political program. Since they described their activities as colonization via settlement, they were characterizing Zionism as settler-colonial in every practical sense. Option D is too narrow, Option E would likely lead to further lack of consensus, and Option F is the least desirable as removing the sentence entirely would omit a significant and well-sourced aspect of Zionist history. Paprikaiser (talk) 00:03, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The first sentence of that section says almost the exact same thing, but attributes the statement to scholars, rather than Zionists themselves. So option F wouldn't actually omit anything. Just remove the redundancy and more objectionable wording. Slava570 (talk) 00:11, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Since they described their activities as colonization via settlement, they were characterizing Zionism as settler-colonial in every practical sense WP:OR بادهای شمال ❄️ (talk) 07:21, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option D is definitely the most neutral and accurate phrasing in my view. It uses the actual phrasing that was used at the time rather than using new terms such as "colonialism" and "settler colonialism" to people who did not use or have those words in their lexicon, thus using them is borderline if not actual WP:OR. Option D also does not violate WP:UNDUE like Options A and C which use wikivoice even though the claim in question is contested by scholars and Zionists at the time were split on this issue (See Borochov, Granovsky, and others mentioned above in the discussion). Overall, Option D is the most verifiable phrasing and does not overstate what the sources actually say. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 16:45, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option B. The principle here is simple: we report what reliable sources say. Multiple academic references confirm that Zionist leaders used colonial self-descriptions. The fact that some modern Zionists reject the term is irrelevant to what early proponents said, simply adding “Early proponents” can make the distinction without changing historical consensus. I am OK with Option A as well, though I think B is a better compromise.Tashmetu (talk) 07:55, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Please mention your sources by name بادهای شمال ❄️ (talk) 08:33, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure! Though others have already listed sources so I'll refer to them. Masalha and Massad are two cited by Aquillon, confirmed by for instance Jabotinsky and Motzkin cited by M.Bitton. There are many more that can be cited, such as the examples given by Cdjp1: Morris 2008, p.3, Liu 2022, p.190, Bar-Yosef 2012, pp.100–101, Nordau & Gottheil 1905, p.30, Sabbagh-Khoury 2022, Finkelstein 2003, p. 109. Tashmetu (talk) 09:14, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A. Removing this description because it is not the description early Zionists would have used is inventing policy where one does not exist. As I've pointed out before, we do not, for example, write the first paragraphs of this article in German just because that's the language Herzl wrote in. It's not an anachronism to describe what he wrote but in English. We frequently use terminology that the subject of an article would not use to describe itself - i.e., the way "regime" is used across Wikipedia to describe governments that would not use that term to describe themselves. We have sourcing, cited ad-nauseam in discussions of this sentence, that shows that even though early or even modern Zionists would use different words to describe Zionism, the thing that they are describing is (reliably sourced, no synth or OR needed), settler colonialism. Smallangryplanet (talk) 10:37, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    We frequently use terminology that the subject of an article would not use to describe itself - i.e., the way "regime" is used across Wikipedia to describe governments that would not use that term to describe themselves. Sure - Kim family (North Korea) suggests that they are an absolute monarchy, but it doesn't say they "characterize themselves as an absolute monarchy". Which "regime" do we say "describe themselves as a regime", if that proves your point?
    we do not, for example, write the first paragraphs of this article in German just because that's the language Herzl wrote in. Translation is one of the specified examples of What is not original research. Applying a theoretical framework to the primary statements of historical figures... is not one of those examples. Samuelshraga (talk) 12:31, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Right. I'm saying that this is different from that case (the DPRK) because Zionists do describe themselves in ways that are indistinguishable from settler colonialism various proponents of Zionism have characterized Zionism as colonial or settler-colonial (as per sources), regardless of if they used the words "settler colonialism" in English.
    Re your second point: I'm not saying that my imaginary translation would represent OR/a fix for OR. I'm saying that it's absurd to insist that every wiki article uses only the exact language (literally or figuratively) as the subject did in the time the subject was writing, and using that as an example of why it's absurd. Smallangryplanet (talk) 13:31, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    As a translator in real life, I can tell you that the goal of translation is not to use the exact same words, but to use the exact same meaning of each relevant unit of meaning (whether a word or term or full sentence). The term "settler colonialism" (in English and every other language) is distinguishable from the term "colonization." If Zionists used the term "colonization" with a meaning of "settlement," then they did not mean settler colonialism. Slava570 (talk) 13:43, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    If I use the term "an editor who is replying to me" to describe you, it doesn't mean that it is untrue that you are also "a translator who is replying to me" or even "a person who is replying to me while sitting down/standing up/whatever." It just means that all I know about you is that you are an editor who is replying to me. Similarly, if early to present Zionists describe their goal as moving to and controlling a territory, replacing and/or assimilating the native population, they are describing what we now know to be settler colonialism regardless of if they call it green cheese or a nice friendly international relocation. Smallangryplanet (talk) 15:04, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Your mistake is you are conflating the word "colonization" as used by Zionists to mean "human settlement" with moving to and controlling a territory, replacing and/or assimilating the native population. This would be a mistake in the field of translation.
    If you are translating a text, and the source text said "Zionists said colonization" and you wrote "Zionists said replacing/assimilating the native population" That would be wrong. Slava570 (talk) 15:37, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    You're misunderstanding me. I am not saying "Zionists in the past said X, which means Y." What I am saying - have been saying, as others have said, as RS have said - is that when Zionists said X, they were and are saying what we now know to be Y. Smallangryplanet (talk) 18:41, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Do any reliable sources make that explicit connection? That is, do any RS say something along the lines of "Zionists described their movement in terms that today would be known as settler colonialism"? If no sources make that connection, it's original research. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 18:45, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I will not be re-litigating this. See the sources section below, where other editors have pointed out that this is sourced in the article. Smallangryplanet (talk) 19:59, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    More sources exist beyond those cited in the article. Some of them contradict the assertion A is trying to make. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 20:46, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    What you are fundamentally saying is, "even though they said oranges, what they really meant was apples." This is a very convenient approach for anyone interested in writing revisionist history. Just say they didn't mean what they actually said, and you can write whatever you want. Slava570 (talk) 18:52, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    No. I am saying that they said oranges and they meant oranges and it took until we discovered that there is a variant of orange called settler oranges to realise that the oranges they were describing were that kind of orange. Smallangryplanet (talk) 20:01, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Colonization as "human settlement" does not involve domination. Settler colonialism necessarily involves domination. The two things are mutually exclusive, so it is not possible for one to be a "variant" of the other. Slava570 (talk) 20:57, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    If your contention is that a majority of Zionists - from the 1800s to present - believe that nobody lives in the land they now claim, then we are quite simply not existing in the same conceptual universe and should leave it to the closer to decide. Smallangryplanet (talk) 13:03, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I have never said anything remotely similar to that. Slava570 (talk) 13:09, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Colonization as "human settlement" does not involve domination. Smallangryplanet (talk) 13:36, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct. That is the dictionary definition as used by at least many Zionists at the time. It is possible to settle a piece of land without dominating the neighbors. This has happened all over the world, on numerous occassions. Slava570 (talk) 13:43, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Herzl himself didn't even think that. He wrote that attempting colonization without domination would make the native population feel threatened to the point that they would demand a halt to immigration and they would instead need the current rulers of the land to put the Zionists in charge. It's central to his argument! Smallangryplanet (talk) 14:00, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if this is true, there are numerous other Zionists who used the term colonization without the connotation of domination. This is not accounted for in the article anywhere. Slava570 (talk) 14:14, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not accounted for in the article anywhere - ok, be WP:BOLD, then! Smallangryplanet (talk) 14:32, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    because Zionists do describe themselves in ways that are indistinguishable from settler colonialism (as per sources), regardless of if they used the words "settler colonialism" in English. That's a different statement than Various proponents of Zionism have characterized Zionism as colonial or settler-colonial. Katzrockso (talk) 22:31, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I was not proposing we use my language in the article. Smallangryplanet (talk) 13:05, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but my point is that the current language (option A) isn't supported by your argument. Katzrockso (talk) 13:33, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I've struck through my phrasing and replaced it with the phrasing from the article. Smallangryplanet (talk) 13:41, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    As I've pointed out before, we do not, for example, write the first paragraphs of this article in German just because that's the language Herzl wrote in. Strawman. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 18:46, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    For it to be a strawman you would have to show how these are not the same argument. It's not enough to just say the word. Smallangryplanet (talk) 19:55, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Instead of arguing that we don't have to follow the wording of the sources, you argue that we don't have to follow the language (as in, we can use English and not Hebrew, Arabic, etc.) of the sources and use that as justification for including a term not found in the sources. That's a strawman.
    I know you're going to respond to this with Wikipedia:Use our own words. To which I respond: there's a fine line between using our own words and original research, and I think using a term anachronistically is more towards the side of original research. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 20:44, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    For this to be a strawman argument I would have to be misrepresenting an argument to make it easier to attack. What I am doing is showing that there is no wikipedia policy insisting that we are only to use the wording of the subject's time period, because if we were, we would need to change a lot more than just this one sentence, since doubtless the original texts phrase lots of things differently.
    Anyway, I disagree that we are over the fine line between own words and research. Hence, I !vote for A. Smallangryplanet (talk) 12:41, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    If they were recapturing land which they are indegenous to, then it is closer to the Reconquista than settler colonialism. And then under your logic, Zionism would be described as a decolonial movement in modern terms. Guz13 (talk) 23:18, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose that depends on your definition of indigenous Drsmartypants(Smarty M.D) (talk) 00:13, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, as cited in that article, there has always been some population of Jews in the Palestine region since the Roman Empire and probably since the return from Babylonian exile facilitated by Cyrus the Great.[2] VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 15:39, 5 May 2026 (UTC) VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 15:39, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Terrible lead I need to find the time fixing بادهای شمال ❄️ (talk) 16:30, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    If my grandmother had wheels etc etc Smallangryplanet (talk) 13:06, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should be stated that Zionists described Zionism as colonialism, but it shouldn't anachronistically place "settler colonialism," which developed as an academic concept in the 1950s and 1960s, in the mouths of people before then. It should also make clear that the current academic consensus that does describe Zionism as settler colonialism. إيان (talk) 17:38, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Aquillion. إيان (talk) 17:46, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    By that do you mean you'd !vote the same: B > D > A > C ? (That sounds logical from your comment.) Note: the current academic consensus is dealt with in the previous paragraph of that section and unaffected by the outcome of this RfC. BobFromBrockley (talk) 05:41, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Not C. C is rubbish. إيان (talk) 21:32, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • D>B>A per BfB. Seems most accurate and well supported. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 13:57, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • C > A > B > D, broadly per TarnishedPath, M.Bitton, Aquillon, Vice regent (VR), Paprikaiser, Smallangryplanet, and most closely per Darouet. For sure not F. Especially convinced by points in favour of (i) specifying early rather than just various Zionists (hence C>A), (ii) not confounding in-group characterisation with in-group terminology (hence D last here), (iii) saying something rather than nothing (hence F unranked). - Asdfjrjjj (talk) 10:11, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • A > C > B Having reviewed the sources referenced by editors in the !votes, option A is the clearest summary. The objection that early Zionists did not explicitly use the modern phrase "settler-colonial" is not persuasive. Wikipedia routinely describes historical phenomena using modern analytical terminology when that is how reliable sources frame the issue. The relevant point is not whether early Zionists used the exact present-day wording, but how they characterized the project in substance. Their descriptions of colonization, settlement, land acquisition, and relations with the existing population are properly summarized by A. Option C and B are also acceptable as a narrower compromise, since they capture that early proponents used colonial self-descriptions. B is less complete as it unnecessarily avoids the settler-colonial dimension reflected in the scholarship, and for both the term "early" is unhelpfully ambiguous. Lf8u2 (talk) 00:36, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you please point to the secondary source that frames the "substance" of Zionists' self-characterisations as settler-colonial? Not that frames Zionism as settler-colonial (a different claim) but that specifically addresses the way they characterise themselves. Since that seems to be what your !vote is based on ("when that is how reliable sources frame the issue"), and I don't think we've seen it. Samuelshraga (talk) 05:03, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion (Zionists saying Zionism is Colonialism)

[edit]

Reminder - all editors are limited to 1000 words in this discussion, not counting direct quotes. This limit does include !votes, responses, and discussion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:53, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Pinging @Aquillion, @User:Bluethricecreamman, @Bobfrombrockley, @Boutboul, @Cdjp1, @CoffeeCrumbs, @Darouet, @Dw31415, @Genabab, @Guz13, @IOHANNVSVERVS, @Katzrockso, @Kowal2701, @LokiTheLiar, @M.Bitton, @MarkBernstein, @NorthernWinds, @Pincrete, @Polygnotus, @Samuelshraga, @ScottishFinnishRadish, @Simonm223, @Slava570, @SuperPianoMan9167, @VidanaliK, @Wh1pla5h99, @אקעגן, @Fiveby, @Vice regent and @Smallangryplanet as involved editors. TarnishedPathtalk 01:54, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm begging contributors to include the sources they want to support any statement they want in the article. Samuelshraga (talk) 05:22, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    What about 'C'? Would you accept my reasoning that this is a valid summary of a broad range of sources, not original research, and suitable for an introduction to a paragraph with multiple assertions about Zionist discourse which would be directly supported? fiveby(zero) 13:51, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it goes without saying that we shouldn't be making editorial decisions based on current discussion at VP. Drawing a conclusion that the sources themselves don't explicitly draw, by filling in the gaps and connecting the dots ourselves, is exactly what is meant by WP:SYNTH. You said It is after all why authors point to evidence of Zionist discourse when employing these models, and yet you cannot name a single author who has actually stated that Early Zionists described their activities in Palestine in ways that now correspond to academic descriptions of colonialism or settler colonialism. If no scholar has come out and said that openly, then what on earth would give us the right to do so? "Well that's probably what they believe" or even "that is a logical deduction of their underlying beliefs" really doesn't cut the mustard. Even if none of this were true, unless there was a consensus among reliable sources then C would still be completely improper. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 14:24, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    What you're doing is inappropriately applying a strict textual analysis against statements. You are making a category error in determining that because subjects may not have used particularly phrasing that it doesn't mean the thing that we understand it to be. If someone states they are all about A, B and C and we understand those things to be what is X, it is not WP:SYNTH to state that that person is all about X. Your application of strict textual analysis would have us copy source material word for word, which would both make Wikipedia redundant and constitute copyright infringements. The standard being applied here is inconsistent with how the English language works and incompatible with our role as a tertiary source of summarising secondary sources. TarnishedPathtalk 14:47, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    inappropriately applying a strict textual analysis. What's next, you don't actually expect to find this in the source do you? This is our little spin, leave it alone! I think we both know that there is an ocean between word for word and just saying what the sources say, without adding meaning. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 15:40, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    No meaning is being added by stating that proponents characterised their project as settler-colonialism when they spoke of their project in ways which align with what we know that concept to be. TarnishedPathtalk 04:17, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    stating that proponents characterised their project as settler-colonialism when they spoke of their project in ways which align with what we know that concept to be. No, that's anachronistic. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 12:00, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    inappropriately applying a strict textual analysis against statements, Your application of strict textual analysis would have us copy source material word for word: Last time such an argument was stated I was able to find more direct alternative statements by all but one author refuting some editors' conclusion of their texts. We should say these things carefully. This time I probably won't be able to find statements refuting this (this is way too niche) but it does not mean that the conclusion is accurate and acceptable this time. NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 16:24, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it would be difficult to satisfy your strict interpretation of SYNTH here, but you should realize that there are other considered opinions on that bit of policy. How about Penslar quoted below, which i see as stating much the same in reverse: the Zionist project was historically and conceptually situated between colonial, anti-colonial, and post-colonial discourse and practice. emphasis added. If we weren't backwards editing here we would be describing in this section how Zionism fits within colonial discourse (and that is obviously an adjective for colonialism in context). fiveby(zero) 16:22, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    People seem to not have read the article. It already says Joseph Massad argues that Zionism was intrinsically linked to European colonial thought from its inception. If you want to also attribute this or some version of it to Penslar there is nothing preventing that. Let the scholars do the work for you, rather than making an adjacent claim they they haven't made. As you say, don't work backwards. Again, this interpretative framework requires attribution, which C does not give. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 16:43, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Close, but i was looking for a correspondence between Zionist discourse and colonialism (the comparative framework). Thought that was the SYNTH issue. Maybe we should give it a rest tho, issue is probably well laid out for the closer. fiveby(zero) 17:16, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Odd that you accuse people of working backwards and then outright admit that you are looking for sources that parrot your beliefs. Done here now (word limit). Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 17:27, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The term “settler-colonial” seems a little academic to me for Wikipedia audience. I’m trying to learn a little more before responding. I will search settler-colonial for myself but if someone wants to point me to this as a concept, I’d appreciate it. Dw31415 (talk) 19:36, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Some people might have some better sources, but I think a good place to start would be the Wikipedia articles on settler colonialism and colonialism and Zionism as settler colonialism. These pages say some scholars characterize Zionism as settler colonialism, while others don't. Slava570 (talk) 19:56, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The former here (Settler colonialism) has unsourced material in the lead so I'm not sure whether it should be relied upon. Maybe this can be better (haven't checked). NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 20:04, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not a reasonable justification for ignoring the settler colonialism page. WP:LEAD says A lead section should be carefully sourced as appropriate, although it is common for citations to appear only in the body and not the lead. Smallangryplanet (talk) 10:23, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason not to rely on it is that Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Samuelshraga (talk) 10:27, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    They're not citing it as a source in an article. The other editor asked for learning more about this as a concept and the link was provided. This is literally the purpose of Wikipedia. Smallangryplanet (talk) 10:40, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    This doesn't affect the article, so if you want to continue the discussion you're welcome to post on my talk. Samuelshraga (talk) 11:44, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Smallangryplanet Settler colonialism contrasts with exploitation colonialism, where the imperial power conquers territory to exploit the natural resources and gain a source of cheap or free labor Sort of nitpicky but I don't see anything in the article supporting "free." بادهای شمال ❄️ (talk) 12:10, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed that sentence, it's just repeating the previous sentence in a worse way (and the extraction colonialism page is itself a mess...) Smallangryplanet (talk) 13:11, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. That was helpful. I’m a bit confused why the existing sentence is the start of a paragraph on rebranding Zionism. The section start of “Various scholars” seems to cover this well. I think I lean toward F (delete) as result, but will read again. Dw31415 (talk) 03:22, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The first paragraph of that section says Zionism has been characterized as a form of colonialism or settler colonialism by various scholars. The next paragraph says alsmost the same thing, except Various proponents of Zionism have characterized it... which is just plain false. This is why I think if the paragraph is going to be about proponents, then it should be about proponents. Slava570 (talk) 11:54, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed citations for #RFC: Zionists saying Zionism is Colonialism

[edit]

Note: I've broken this into its own section so that the extensive quotes don't throw off the word counter. Please keep all discussion of these sources in the RFC discussion section. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:45, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish is there any easy way, other than copying and pasting ones own comments into a word counter, to determine how close to the 1000 word limit an editor is? Katzrockso (talk) 22:41, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
User:L235/wordCountsByEditor.js ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:02, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: for anyone wanting to use the above script, it doesn't work properly unless you have Convenient Discussions installed in your common.js file (at least it didn't for me). See commons:User:Jack who built the house/Convenient Discussions for install instructions. TarnishedPathtalk 12:55, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if this counts quotes, which do not count towards the word limit. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 13:05, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Chicdat: 1,045 words, 7 comments (149.3 words per comment)
Wh1pla5h99: 894 words, 17 comments (52.6 words per comment)
NorthernWinds: 631 words, 9 comments (70.1 words per comment)
Fiveby: 541 words, 9 comments (60.1 words per comment)
M.Bitton: 515 words, 14 comments (36.8 words per comment)
Slava570: 435 words, 7 comments (62.1 words per comment)
TarnishedPath: 422 words, 8 comments (52.8 words per comment)
Vice regent: 324 words, 2 comments (162.0 words per comment)
Darouet: 304 words, 1 comment (304.0 words per comment)
Aquillion: 277 words, 1 comment (277.0 words per comment)
Bobfrombrockley: 192 words, 3 comments (64.0 words per comment)
Kowal2701: 124 words, 2 comments (62.0 words per comment)
Cdjp1: 120 words, 4 comments (30.0 words per comment)
Katzrockso: 117 words, 4 comments (29.3 words per comment)
SuperPianoMan9167: 103 words, 3 comments (34.3 words per comment)
Samuelshraga: 61 words, 3 comments (20.3 words per comment)
ScottishFinnishRadish: 55 words, 3 comments (18.3 words per comment)
LidDahl: 54 words, 1 comment (54.0 words per comment)
Dw31415: 42 words, 1 comment (42.0 words per comment)
Simonm223: 27 words, 1 comment (27.0 words per comment)
Riposte97: 3 words, 1 comment (3.0 words per comment) ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:04, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Wh1pla5h99: 1,097 words, 25 comments (43.9 words per comment)
Chicdat: 1,045 words, 7 comments (149.3 words per comment)
NorthernWinds: 839 words, 12 comments (69.9 words per comment)
Fiveby: 541 words, 9 comments (60.1 words per comment)
Slava570: 518 words, 9 comments (57.6 words per comment)
M.Bitton: 515 words, 14 comments (36.8 words per comment)
TarnishedPath: 506 words, 13 comments (38.9 words per comment)
Everyone else is under 500 words. At over over 1000 words must stop engaging. That means you, Wh1pla5h99. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:49, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@ScottishFinnishRadish: It should not include quotes per Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict#Word limits (1,000 words). I'm under 900 by my count. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 11:57, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the above comment, I'm adding discussion sections where editors can add sources they think could be used to support the different options (excluding F as the absence of text won't have a citation). Samuelshraga (talk) 05:30, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Massad quotes: #List of quotes (colonialism rfc). Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 09:43, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If people are going to put quotes in the below sections, can they please put their signatures to them, so that we know who to address if we disagree that any particular quote supports any particular option. TarnishedPathtalk 10:40, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I almost declared the Granovsky quote fake after checking this scan but this is misleading. It can't be the real source cited by Troen since Troen's citation says Abraham Granovsky, “Land settlement and development in Palestine,” Palestine & Near East Economic Magazine, 6: 2–3 (1931): 25–62. so the publisher is different (and so is the year). I believe Troen is referring to Land settlement and development in Palestine: some critical comments on the Report of Sir John Hope Simpson. It's a pretty weird choice to make 2 books with the same title one year after another. I'm still waiting for my scan of the book so it hasn't been verified by me yet. بادهای شمال ❄️ (talk) 17:27, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Match sources & quotes to options

[edit]

Sources for A

[edit]

Already sourced in the article as well as in the various examples that were given during the discussions. M.Bitton (talk) 14:43, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: none of the sources currently supporting that sentence include the words “settler colonialism”. This wording would need additional sources. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:16, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Both M.Bitton and myself have addressed this in our comments. No additional sourcing is required. TarnishedPathtalk 08:57, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for B

[edit]

Sources for C

[edit]
  1. Uncanny returns in settler colonial state: return, exile, and decolonization in Palestine/Israel. By: Järvi, Tiina, Ethnic & Racial Studies, 01419870, Oct2024, Vol. 47, Issue 13
  2. Managing Jewish Identity in Arguments Over Jewish Support for Palestine. By: Goodman, Simon, Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 10529284, Jan/Feb2025, Vol. 35, Issue 1
  3. Utopias and geopolitics in Theodor Herzl's Altneuland. By: Stolow, Jeremy, Utopian Studies, 1045991X, 1997, Vol. 8, Issue 1 Simonm223 (talk) 11:52, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Järvi doesn't seem to me to support C but oppose it, as the thesis is that Zionists denied the settler/colonial nature of their project and instead characterised it as one of "return"
    Goodman, very interesting but not a BESTSOURCE given it's a social work journal by a non-expert on this history, but only has one sentence related to colon- words: Grabelsky (2023) argues that Zionism always was, and remains, a European settler- colonial project and that it was backed by other European settler-colonial supporting countries, especially the United States and United Kingdom. Thus does not support any claim about views of proponents of Zionism on this. Perhaps an error?
    Stolow does support C though I think.
    Given that Stolow and Degani are the only sources presented which do, this seems to be quite a marginal scholarly position we'd need to attribute to Jeremy Stolow and Arnon Degani. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:03, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I just read Stolow, I'm not sure how it supports C. The closest I found was "Debates about the historical significance of Herzl and the early Zionist movement rarely fail to gravitate to one of two conclusions ... For others, it was an apparatus for legitimating the formation of a settler-colonial state ... I will take the position in this paper that Zionism is both and neither of these". Or perhaps "[Said] suggests that Zionism and the specific complex of ideas and practices it spawned vis-a-vis the land of Palestine was exemplary of the Orientalist discourses being generated at that time" and then going on to endorse that thesis.
I don't see these as anywhere close to equivalent to "Early Zionists described their activities in Palestine in ways that now correspond to academic descriptions of colonialism or settler colonialism". @Simonm223 & @Bobfrombrockley were you looking at something else in the source? Samuelshraga (talk) 05:21, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, because it’s not about what we’re discussing in this section (it’s about Herzl as an author of speculative fiction), it’s quite hard to work out how Stolow would respond to our question, and certainly C is not a good summary of his argument. He’s also focused on Herzl rather than Zionists in general, and explicitly rejecting the mainstream scholarship, saying his aim is to “re-evaluate Herzlian Zionism as it is inscribed in the dominant historiographic discourses.” For all these reasons, it’s not a great source to use to pin a contentious statement on.
But this is the passage I thought might support C: early Zionists like Herzl were able to transform "Palestine" into the site for (at least) two simultaneous discursive transformations: a mythological grounding of Jewish identity; and a technocratic plan to transplant a dispersed European population, the engineering of a form of settler-colonialism. But re-reading it more slowly today, I am most struck by the repeated insistence on the heterogeneity of Zionism and the impossibility of making singular statements about it: For some, Zionism was a dream translated into reality, a paradise descended to earth, and a utopia… given a place in the world (see Gorni, Hertzberg). For others, it was an apparatus for legitimating the formation of a settler-colonial state, a hegemonic strategy for grounding Jewish identity in a specific territory, and a refusal to recognize other ways of "being Jewish," let alone the claims of others to the same territory which Zionism marks (see Boyarin, Said). At the risk of adding to such attempted definitions, I will take the position in this paper that Zionism is both and neither of these… but rather constitutes a discursive field encompassing the disjunctures between these two terms. That is to say, I understand Zionism as comprising an extensive arena in which different parties have initiated, debated, contested, outright rejected, or collaborated to produce the "meaning" of its basic terms of reference. I am saying, in other words, that the discourse of early Zionism was composed from what Mikhail Bakhtin calls "thousands of living dialogic threads, woven by socio-ideological consciousness around the given object of an utterance,"… For Zionists were of many stripes. In other words, it supports some wording (option E?) that expresses this range, along the lines of “Some early Zionists understood their movement to be a colonising project while others rejected this description and some saw as anti-colonial.” BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:41, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think I agree. There are parts of this source that might be relevant to constructing a sentence about this topic, and that that sentence would not be C. Samuelshraga (talk) 11:25, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for D

[edit]

Sources for E

[edit]

Sources for F

[edit]
The article should employ colonialism and settler-colonialism as comparative models, not propaganda
  • ­There is a deep divide, however, between scholars who do and do not conceive of Zionism as a variety of colonialism. Debates about virtually ­every aspect of the history of Zionism and Israel boil down to clashing conceptions of the essence of the Zionist proj­ect—­whether it has been one of homecoming and seeking asylum or one of colonial settlement and expropriation. Penslar 2023, p. 67
  • A nation can engage in both settler-­colonial and anticolonial practices. Penslar 2023, p. 70
  • The relationship between Zionism and colonialism, long a highly controversial subject among scholars throughout the world, has in recent years become a primary source of friction between champions and opponents of revisionism within Israeli historiography and sociology. Penslar 2007, p. 90
  • One serious problem with the discussion on the relationship between Zionism and colonialism is the attempt to establish complete congruence or total separation between the two phenomena. Another, related, problem is the failure to include additional categories of analysis such as anti-colonialism (Zionism as an act of resistance by a colonized people) and post-colonial state-building (understanding Israel within the political and economic framework of twentieth-century Asia and Africa). This chapter will contend that the Zionist project was historically and conceptually situated between colonial, anti-colonial, and post-colonial discourse and practice. Penslar 2007, p. 91
  • Unlike most of the literature on Zionism’s relationship with colonialism, which tends to employ comparative models solely in order to incriminate or exculpate Zionist thought and practice... Penslar 2007, p. 91

These are cherry-picked quotes from Penslar, who does place "Zionism within a settler-­colonial matrix while allowing for its particularities" The intent is to show WP:BACKWARDS editing and a non-neutral approach to editing with these comparative models, employment of colonialism and settler colonialism no more informative than the propaganda sign in the image. fiveby(zero) 12:17, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Avineri, "Zionism as a National Liberation Movement": This both liberalism and nationalism created in the modern, secularized Jew the beginning of a new self-awareness, not determined any more by religious terms, but coeval to the emergence of modern, secular nationalism in Europe." (p. 142)
  • Ibid: [Of the founders of modern Zionism) Their plight is not economic, nor is it religious: they respond—just like Black leaders in America a century later—to the challenge of their self-identity, looking for roots, acquiring self-respect in a society which has uprooted them. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:43, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

List of quotes & sources

[edit]

Zionist quotes

[edit]
  • Jabotinsky 1923, pp. 6–7: "The Zionists want only one thing, Jewish immigration; and this Jewish immigration is what the Arabs do not want... It does not matter at all which phraseology we employ in explaining our colonising aims, Herzl's or Sir Herbert Samuel's. Colonisation carries its own explanation, the only possible explanation, unalterable and as clear as daylight to every ordinary Jew and every ordinary Arab. Colonisation can have only one aim, and Palestine Arabs cannot accept this aim. It lies in the very nature of things, and in this particular regard nature cannot be changed."; "When we had to speak about that Greek "precedent" we have taken only the example of the Greek Government; how it managed quickly and cheaply to colonise [absorb] the refugees in Macedonia; but never the Turkish example of transferring people against their free will."[a][3]
  • Nordau & Gottheil 1905, p. 30: "They take care that the existing and promising beginnings of a Jewish colonization shall be looked after and maintained till the movement will be possible on a large scale."
  • Dov Ber Borochov: "It is clear that this colonization has nothing in common with the politics of colonial conquest, expansion, and exploitation. The Jewish people possessing no power of statecraft and seeking neither markets nor monopolies of raw materials for production in favor of a “mother country,” cannot think of launching a policy of colonial politics in Palestine or of molesting the population of the country. The Jewish people aims at creating a secured place of employment for its déclassé, wandering masses: it seeks to increase the productive forces of the country in peaceful cooperation with the Arab population."[4]
  • Martin Buber: "Our settlers do not come here as do the colonists from the Occident to have natives do their work for them; they themselves set their shoulders to the plow and they spend their strength and their blood to make the land fruitful. But it is not only for ourselves that we desire its fertility. The Jewish farmers have begun to teach their brothers, the Arab farmers, to cultivate the land more intensively; we desire to teach them further: together with them we want to cultivate the land to ‘serve’ it, as the Hebrew has it. The more fertile this soil becomes, the more space there will be for us and for them. We have no desire to dispossess them: we want to live with them. We do not want to dominate them: we want to serve with them..."[5]
  • Frederick Kisch (quoted by Massad): "FH. Kisch, the chairman of the Zionist Executive, noted in his diary in 1931 that he was 'striving to eliminate the word “colonization” in this connection [Jewish agricultural settlement in Palestine] from our phraseology. The word is not appropriate from our point of view since one does not set up colonies in a homeland but abroad: e.g. German colonies on the Volga or Jewish colonies in the Argentine, while from the point of view of Arab opinion the verb to “colonize” is associated with imperialism and aggressiveness.'"
  • Avraham Granot/Granovsky: "A distinction should be drawn between colonial policy and colonization policy. Colonial policy is aimed primarily at exploiting the natural resources of a country, and is little concerned with its settlement. It has prejudicial results in various respects: the enrichment of a small group of European immigrants who establish enterprises in which natives do all the work; exploitation of the aborigines and creation of deep-lying differences between the two classes of the population. In the end, all this tends to check the development of a country, especially if it is thinly populated. Colonization policy, on the contrary, is bound up with settlement on a large scale: room must be found for the largest possible number of immigrants who will take a personal share in every field of activity... The Jews come to Palestine to execute not a colonial, but a colonization policy." [6]
  • Menachem Ussishkin: "I saw the English colonies in Egypt. The English have introduced their administration there, capitalism, railways, post, telegraph; but if you ask the Arabs, who want to live under the rule of England, you will hear a negative answer, for the English seek their own good there and not the welfare of the people of the country. Our role should be completely different from this, with this old world, with the world of the East, we should unite... Only by leaning on the East... will the people of Israel restore to it its glory as ancient times."[7]
  • Israel Zangwill: "Thus, although Jerusalem has remained throughout the entire Christian era in the hand of foreign conquerors, the Jews have always retained some sense of being colonists, whose mother city was in Asia. Some day it would be their own city again—but in God’s good time, in a whirl of miracles!"[8]
  • Chaim Weizmann: "...the British East Africa Protectorate is more suitable for a plantation type of colonisation (colonisation d'exploitation) than for an agricultural type of colonisation (colonisation de peuplement)... The former type of colonisation, demanding of course great capital and few settlers, is hardly suitable to our situation, however."[9]; "the Jewish people... realises that, in laying the foundations of its old-new home, it must not tolerate even a suspicion of faith in those vicious imperialist principles which have been the source of half its woes."[10]; "We are attempting to build a home in Palestine and we are conscious that this can only be successful if it will be done in cooperation with the peoples and population of Palestine. We are not coming into Palestine as conquerors. We are not coming into Palestine to dominate anybody."[11]
  • David Ben-Gurion: "...what you call immigration, but which again is a profanation of what we cannot translate, but what we call in our Hebrew Aliyah. There is no immigration into Palestine. There no immigrants there. It is a return."[12]; "The Soviets have dared call us ‘colonialists’. Their own savage oppression of Eastern Europe makes them self-styled experts in such matters, no doubt. Nevertheless, one can state categorically that no people in history are less colonialist than we."[13]; "We do not want to create a situation like that which exists in South Africa, where the whites are the owners and rulers, and the blacks are the workers. If we do not do all kinds of work, easy and hard, skilled and unskilled, if we become merely landlords, then this will not be our homeland."[14]
  • Shlomo Kaplansky: "Colonial politics are founded upon the dispatch of capital from the developed and wealthy metropolis to the colony, which is economically backward and poor in capital. The goal is the exploitation of the living resources within the colonial land for the benefit of the metropolis... Colonial politics means the economic subjugation of the conquered land to the monopoly of the conquering state: to plunder the natural treasures of the colony, to abuse the labor of the landws natives, to prey upon it, and to exploit without mercy... Not so is Colonization politics, whose goals and methods of labor are entirely different. We have no colonial-political intentions, nor is there any room for such intentions; the Charter, therefore, is for us a legal concept from a foreign world, with no points of contact between us and it. We do not seek provinces that will be dependent upon us politically and economically, nor markets for the trade of goods manufactured in our metropolis. We do not wish to send capital in order to exploit the wealth of the land and its natives. We do not aspire to economically subjugate the Land of Israel to us or to become a ruling class within it. We wish only to organize [our] people and settle them in the Land of Israel."[15]
  • Henrietta Szold: "Like Ramsay MacDonald, Lord Milner is most sympathetic with the Zionist undertaking. And he understands its inwardness and its difficulties. Above all he realizes the character of the Arab relations to the Jews. To me it seemed that, in spite of his administrative past, his attitude was untinged by the colonial-mindedness which offends me in Governor Storrs and the other British officials in Palestine. Lady Milner, whose first husband was Edward Cecil, is as sympathetic and open-minded as Lord Milner."[16]
  • Ahad Ha'am: "Palestinian agricultural settlements (or colonies, as they are generally called)"; "In 1895, when the colonisation work was at a low ebb..."; "Now the historic right of a people in relation to a country inhabited by others can mean only the right to settle once more in its ancestral land, to work the land and to develop its resources without hindrance. And if the inhabitants complain... the historic right has a complete answer to them: these newcomers are not strangers, but the descendants of the old masters of the country, and.. they are as good as natives... But this historic right does not over-ride the right of the other inhabitants... The country is at present their national home too..."[17]
  • Nahum Sokolow: "The Jews are loyal to the ideals of their prophets; not by the sword, not through political intrigues, not through hazards and adventures do they want to obtain a home in Palestine"[18]
  • Theodor Herzl (to Cecil Rhodes): "How, then, do I happen to turn to you, since this is an out-of-the- way matter for you? How indeed? Because it is something colonial, and because it presupposes understanding of a development which will take twenty or thirty years."[b]; "The Jewish Colonial Bank must actually become the Jewish National Bank. Its colonial aspect is only window-dressing, hokum, a firm-name. A national financial instrument is to be created."[20]
  • Judah Leon Magnes: "...as the history of all conquest and colonization shows, the only possible hope of success is by the Joshua method [conquest]... I do not believe it... But if it be so, the Jewish People, thank God, will never be successful conquerors and colonizers. Neither the hostile world nor their own soul will let them."[21]
  • Berl Katznelson: "The world will be compelled to move toward settling desolate lands—those lands of Asia and Africa... In place of the colonial migration from Europe..—the migration of exploiters who oppress the natives of the land—a new process will begin: a mass migration to work, without exploiting others. And our bitter fate is that we will be the ones to pave this way."[22]; We did not come to the Land of Israel as violent colonial plunderers. We did not bring with us an attitude of "whites" toward "blacks". We did not come as a "ruling" race.[23]; "Since the era in which Europe first engaged in colonial and cultural settlement, there has never been a project of settlement so defined by justice and moral integrity toward others as our own work in the Land of Israel. It is the duty of every honest person to acknowledge this truth. We have never been a colonial movement, but rather a movement of colonization. By our own hands have we settled the land, not through the labor of others."[24]
  • Arthur Ruppin: "These young men [Jewish Immigrants] were not content with the situation — similar to colonization projects in other non-European countries — whereby the immigrating Jews increasingly assumed the position of landlords and overseers, while the hard work on the soil was done by cheap, indigenous labour. They wanted for themselves a real return to the land, to hard work and self-fulfilment as tillers of the soil and as workers in comradeship and equality."[25]; "Zionist colonization in Palestine differs from colonization in other countries in that in itself it is not the ultimate aim... but primarily serves the purpose of building up the Jewish National Home"[26]
  • Moshe Leib Lilienblum: "After the English have conquered Egypt or another land and have already acquired it through force or possession, desiring to drain its commerce and industry, or so that this land might serve as a barrier for their other territories, or so that this land will become truly English—entirely part of their state—they establish "English colonies" there (not so that the English will work the land there, but so they may trade across the length and breadth of the country). They spread their language, their order, their laws, etc., and establish schools there to turn the foreign masses into subjects of their government. But we—we are not conquering the land for ourselves, and we have no business with the inhabitants of another nation to teach them Hebrew or establish schools for them; the entire arrival of our brothers there was for no other reason than to bring forth bread from the earth."[27]
  • Itzhak Ben-Zvi: "The future Hebrew "Decapolis" will indeed be different from the Greek "Decapolis"... its cultural aims are the fulfillment of our own needs and influencing the Diaspora—and not the assimilation of the surroundings through force and coercion; and the main thing, that our aim in general is not an attack for the sake of ruling over others, but the protection of our existence and internal fortification for the sake of liberation from the yoke of others."[28]; "...The land of Israel will be used not as a colony, but as a metropolis of the Hebrew people and of the current indigenous Yishuv"[29]
  • Hayim Greenberg: "Of course, a closer analysis of the question shows immediately how poorly the analogy between the Jews and imperialistic peoples holds... Even the uninformed reader cannot help perceiving that Jews acquire land for colonization by methods other than those employed by the British in Kenya, and that all Manhattan Island cost less than a few dunam of Arab land. Still another difference becomes apparent: European imperialists send chiefly plantation-owners, militia, civil employees, merchants and traders into their colonies. Jewish immigration to Palestine, on the other hand, consists chiefly of workers. In fact, the principle of self-labor is becoming cardinal in Zionism. Obviously the characteristic ear-marks of imperialist policy are not to be seen in Zionism."[30]
  • Max Nordau: "Already today we have evidence of this, that there are 600,000 present Arabs today in the Holy Land that maintain good neighbourly relations with the Jewish immigrants ('olim'). 'The question of languages will serve as an obstacle that has not been overcome!'"[31][c]
  • Max Nordau: "But the current owners of the land do not know anything about this. And because of that, when the instigators come and say to the Arabs, that the Zionists are ploting to flood the Land of Israel and to settle it in their multitude, they believe that that means that their land will be stolen from them and will be for the new olim. They do not consider the parts of the land that are like deserts."[32][c]
  • Max Nordau:"It is a little difficlt to understand, how the the new society was able to find that the land is sufficient for all of the millions of the children of Israel that are coming from exile, if all the land that the Arabs had previously worked, that is, the majority of the good land that is in the Land of Israel, stayed in their hands even now and nothing was taken for them."[33][c]
  • Yehiel Tschlenow: Peoples seek new lands for themselves, first of all, not for the purpose of settlement, but for the purpose of exploitation... These are the main reasons for the establishment of colonies among peoples. We have none. Between the aspirations and intentions of the peoples of Europe and our aspirations and intentions there separates a deep abyss, which, unfortunately, is not visible to all writers of various articles. And we would bring great disaster upon ourselves if we did not forget this fundamental difference.[34]
  • Leo Motzkin: "The Zionists generally hold the view that the distribution of professions among the Jews is inherently artificial, and they do not wish merely to engage in investigating who is to blame for the historical creation of these conditions; rather, they approach the task of overturning and reshaping these economic conditions anew, out of their own will and on an independent basis. We had hoped indeed that the future would generally change the socio-economic circumstances and mutual human relations, for in any case, the exploitation of man by man shall cease."[35]
  • Abba Hillel Silver: "Our pioneers came to a land wasting away, to a country in utter decline. They came to a soil sterile and barren, and they invested measureless effort to undo the mischief of the centuries. By their own efforts, neither seeking nor receiving any favors, they revived an old and impoverished land; they came not to exploit a backward people, or to drain wealth from the cheap labor of a colonial people. These Jewish pioneers invested themselves, their bodies, their souls into their country, and fructified it by their tears and their blood and their strength."[36]

Post-Zionist quotes

[edit]
  • Burg 2003: "It turns out that the 2,000-year struggle for Jewish survival comes down to a state of settlements, run by an amoral clique of corrupt lawbreakers who are deaf both to their citizens and to their enemies. A state lacking justice cannot survive. More and more Israelis are coming to understand this as they ask their children where they expect to live in 25 years. Children who are honest admit, to their parents' shock, that they do not know. The countdown to the end of Israeli society has begun."[d]

Secondary scholarly sources

[edit]
  • Herzl:settler-national-colonial...I stress this point because if we go back to one of the founding fathers of Zionism – Herzl, who is often considered the founding father – we may not find any obsession with ethno-religious purity on the surface of the text. This entices many Zionist commentators to take him as the father of liberal secular Zionism. But this brings me to the heart of the matter: diving into Herzl’s text reveals the inherent violence in the project, a violence that lurks beneath the liberal pseudo universal language and is implied in the mix of the settler colonial project and the national aspiration.[37]
  • Yaʿaḳovson & Rubinshṭain 2010: "In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (and in certain cases after this period also), it was natural to define a settlement project – even if it was unrelated to colonialism in the sense in which it is understood today, not part of any conflict, and undertaken inside the state doing the settling, not outside its borders – as ‘colonization’. Hence the term used for the various places where settlers established themselves was ‘colonies’ and the homesteaders were known as ‘colonists‘."
  • Penslar 2020: "[these criticisms are based on] Herzl's Zionist writings and diaries, whose invocations of colonial governance are ad hoc and instrumental, linked to a particular negotiating partner or strategy at a particular moment in time"
  • In his pamphlet, Herzl did not shy away from attributing appropriate terminology to describe his plan to colonize Argentina or Palestine. To him settlements meant colonies; departing Jews stood for colonists; the method by which to obtain sovereignty guaranteed by a European power indicates that a European power must be found to award the Zionists a charter to establish “a Jewish home” under its protection, and to finance his colonial scheme, a Jewish Colonial Trust must be created and capitalized – this Jewish Colonial Trust later became Israel’s Central Bank and Bank Leumi. Herzl had no illusion that he was running a colonial scheme to colonize a non-European land. [38]
  • Avineri 1999: "In this context Herzl also came up with the idea for another financial arm of the movement, the Jewish Colonial Trust, adding in an interesting aside in December 1897 that 'the Jewish Colonial Trust must actually become the Jewish National Bank. Its colonial aspect is only window-dressing, hokum, a firm name' - that is, aimed at getting support in the West and assuaging Turkish fears about national aims"; "Few of the supporters or the critics of Zionism are aware of this complex origin of the adjective 'colonial' in the name of this financial institution of the Zionist movement."
  • Masalha 2012, p. 2: "... for decades Zionists themselves used terms such as 'colonisation' (hityashvut) to describe their project in Palestine."
  • Morris 2008, p. 3: "But once there, the settlers could not avoid noticing the majority native population. It was from them, as two of the first settlers put it, that 'we shall... take away the country... through stratagems, without drawing upon us their hostility before we become the strong and populous ones.'"
  • Morris 2017, p. 192"Weizmann in this respect was a typical liberal European of his generation. He was a democrat with a well-developed sense of social justice, but he did not take issue with Western imperialism and colonialism. Indeed, in his writings he was wont to refer to the Jewish settlers in Palestine as “colonists,” to the settlements as “colonies,” and to the whole Zionist enterprise as “colonization.” In part, this was a matter of linguistics. The early Zionists called their settlements moshavot (literally, colonies). But it also reflected the norm of European colonial settlement in other parts of the globe — in the Far East, South Africa and Algeria. Zionism differed from the typical European colonialism, in which imperial mother countries sent their sons to settle distant Third World countries, exploit their natural and human resources, and establish sovereign outposts of strategic worth. The Zionists, by contrast, had come to settle their ancient homeland and, to be sure, to become once again its sovereign masters — not to grab an alien tract of land on behalf of this or that empire or to exploit its resources. In Weizmann's eyes, the Jews were returnees to their homeland, not invaders in the service of an imperial power."
  • Lassner & Troen 2007: "Zionists adamantly rejected the charge made first during the mandate that they were engagedin yet another instance of European colonialism. In the words of Avraham Granovsky, a leading Zionist settlement official: “Jews come to Palestine to execute not a colonial, but a colonization policy.” First articulated in 1931 in response to Arab accusations brought before a British commission to investigate communal violence in 1929, his analysis is also relevant to the contemporary literature of anti-Zionists and revisionist scholars"
  • Finkelstein 2003, p. 109: "The 'defensive ethos' was never the operative ideology of mainstream Zionism. From beginning to end, Zionism was a conquest movement...Yet, settlement was force by other means. Its purpose, in Shapira's words, was to build a 'Jewish infrastructure in Palestine' so that 'the balance of power between Jews and Arabs had shifted in favor of the former' (pp. 121, 133; cf. p. 211). To the call of a Zionist leader on the morrow of Tel Hai that 'we must be a force in the land', Shapira adds the caveat: 'He was not referring to military might but, rather, to power in the sense of demography and colonization' (p. 113). Yet, Shapira willfully misses the basic point that 'demography and colonization' were equally force. Moreover, without the 'foreign bayonets' of the British Mandate, the Zionist movement could not have established even a toehold, let alone struck deep roots, in Palestine."
  • Sabel 2022: "The Jewish immigrants to Palestine were imbued and motivated by the belief that they were returning to their ancestral home, not by a belief that they were discovering and developing a new land."
  • Liu 2022, p. 190: "Jabotinsky was a territorial maximalist who wanted mass Jewish immigration resulting in the creation of a state of Israel encompassing all Biblical lands: 'If you wish to colonize a land in which a people are already living, you must provide a garrison on your behalf. Or else – or else, give up your colonization, for without an armed force which will render physically any attempts to destroy or prevent this colonization, colonization is impossible ... Zionism is a colonizing adventure and therefore it stands or falls by the question of armed force.'"
  • Ukashi 2018: "Unlike “settler societies” elsewhere, Jews did not view themselves as foreign to the land, but as Indigenous returnees seeking national independence."
  • Halpern & Reinharz 2000: "The Young Turk revolution of 1908, which established a parliamentary republic on the ruins of the Ottoman sultanate, led Max Nordau, Herzl’s close ally, to declare that, given equal treatment under the new regime, Zionism did not require a colonial-style charter."
  • Bar-Yosef 2012, pp. 100–101: "The most disturbing manifestation of Herzl's infatuation with British imperialism can be found in his ardent determination to meet Cecil Rhodes. [...] 'How, then, do I happen to turn to you, since this is an out-of-the-way matter for you? How indeed? Because it is something colonial, and because it presupposes understanding of a development which will take twenty or thirty years.'"
  • Friling 2016: "The Jews who arrived were immigrants inasmuch as they were motivated by their economic plight or the lack of any other destination. But the motivation that impelled most of them to the Land of Israel was ideological – as evidenced by the fact that, in Hebrew, they called themselves olim, ‘ascenders,’ a word with religious and ancient historical roots adopted by Zionism."
  • The Zionists’ colonial enterprise, aimed at taking over the country, necessarily had to produce resistance. “If you wish to colonize a land in which people are already living,” Jabotinsky wrote in 1925, “you must find a garrison for the land, or find a benefactor who will provide a garrison on your behalf.... Zionism is a colonizing venture and, therefore, it stands or falls on the question of armed forces."[39]
  • Dr. Yehezkel Landau: "The Zionist homecoming project, as understood by most Jews, is not a colonial conquest by a foreign power seeking to establish its rule in a distant land to exploit its people and resources. Instead, it is the third collective return from enforced exile, following returns from Egypt and Babylon in ancient times."[40]
  • Although Zionists agreed on large-scale colonization as a requirement to achieve their basic objective, they differed not only on the final territorial aims but also on the method to secure a state. The fundamental debate revolved around the role of diplomacy and compromise on the one hand, against colonization behind an 'iron wall, which the native population cannot breach', on the other. To Jabotinsky and the Revisionists, there was no alternative to force in order to secure and preserve the state. Additionally, Revisionist Zionists placed emphasis on the need for rapid immigration and colonization, creating a Jewish demographic majority in land under their sovereignty, a requirement that was also shared by those who aspired for a Jewish and democratic state.[41]
  • Kimerling 2001: "The Jewish immigrants and settlers in Palestine never regarded themselves as colonists, or their movement as a part of the world colonial system; rather, they saw themselves as a people “returning to their homeland” after two thousand years of forced exile."
  • Sabbagh-Khoury 2022: "At its inception, the Zionist movement used the terminology of colonization, and permanent settlement was a core goal of the movement’s founders. A salient example of this terminology can be found in the writings of Theodore Herzl, the father of political Zionism, who in 1902 demanded that Cecil Rhodes, the empire builder of British South Africa, support Zionist settlement in Palestine: '...Because it is something colonial' " (full Herzl quote is elsewhere on this page)
  • Said provides evidence that some early Zionists, such as Moses Hess, equated colonizing Palestine with colonialism more generally, which they saw as bringing ‘civilization’ to the Orient, and he claims that Mordecai, the proto-Zionist prophet in Daniel Deronda, uses similar language to Hess. Despite the important difference I have mentioned between Zionism and European imperialism in general, colonization clearly was common to both, with Zionism creating, as Said asserts, ‘Jewish colonies in the land of their ancestors’,⁸ and historically colonization almost inevitably leads to the existing population eventually being displaced or marginalized: ‘Zionism essentially saw Palestine as the European imperialist did, as an empty territory paradoxically “filled” with ignoble or perhaps even dispensable natives’.[42]
  • Bernstein 2000: "The Jews did not perceive themselves as strangers to the land. On the contrary, they saw themselves as returning, not to Palestine but to the Land of Israel—Eretz Yisrael. They saw themselves as reversing their long but "temporary" stay in the European diaspora and reestablishing a Hebrew entity in the land of their fathers. They saw themselves as settlers and colonizers, but of a very different type than that of the European settler movements. The Zionist settlers were themselves aware of the possible similarity between Zionist colonization and that of European settlers elsewhere and therefore they constantly emphasized what they considered to be vital differences: They were not foreigners but settlers returning to the land that had belonged to their forefathers. They did not intend or desire to exploit native labor; on the contrary, the essence of their return was that they themselves should do the work. They did not wish to dominate the local population but to establish their own, separate, national home, and they believed that their colonization would not harm the native population but would benefit it."
  • In order to establish a state, Zionists needed to do two things: first, transform many kinds of Jews into a homogenized national category so that civil law, and not religious doctrine, would define who was a Jew; and second, obtain from a colonial power a territory to settle. For Herzl and other European Zionists, this necessity was not controversial nor particularly cruel, as colonialism had yet to be discredited as an oppressive and immoral system of governance.[43]
  • Lissak 1996: "The Jewish immigrants to Palestine were imbued and motivated by the belief that they were returning to their ancestral home, not by a belief that they were discovering and developing a new land."
  • The World Zionist Organization tried to assume the role of a colonizing state. It overtly emulated European practices by establishing a colonial bank, funding agricultural research and development and supporting capitalist joint-stock companies that were hoped to yield, eventually, a profit to their shareholders. That is, the instrumental rationality, bureaucratic procedure, and expectation of sustained profit that characterize modern colonialism (and distinguish it from mere conquest) were all present in the early Zionist project. The Zionist Organization's (ZO's) attempts to take on the mantle of the colonizing state failed, primarily due to a lack of means. Moreover, although the officers of the ZO had few qualms about linking their enterprise with European colonialism, they were not wont to conceive of the Arab as an enemy to be expelled or a body to be enslaved for profit. This was the case even when Zionists explicitly invoked European nationality conflicts as models for their own actions. Thus; for example, in 1908 the ZO planned to establish a publicly funded colonization company along the lines of the Prussian Colonization Commission, which sought to strengthen the German presence in Prussian Poland. – DJ Penslar, "Zionism, colonialism and postcolonialism", page 86

Other quotes

[edit]
  • Pessah 2020: "Yet Herzl's Zionism was indeed rooted in his wish to imitate the European colonialism of his period."

Notes

  1. ^ Sort of a weird usage of "colonise". His usage of the word "colonise" meant absorption/settlements.
  2. ^ "...Herzl's Zionist writings and diaries, whose invocations of colonial governance are ad hoc and instrumental, linked to a particular negotiating partner or strategy at a particular moment in time"[19]
  3. ^ a b c Credit to NorthernWinds for sending the Hebrew document to translate
  4. ^ French: La réalité, au terme de deux mille ans de combat pour la survie, est un Etat qui développe des colonies, sous la houlette d'une clique corrompue, qui se moque de la morale civique et du droit. Un Etat géré au mépris de la justice perd la force de survivre. Demandez à vos enfants lequel d'entre eux est sûr de vivre ici dans vingt-cinq ans. Les réponses les plus clairvoyantes risquent de vous choquer, parce que le compte à rebours de la société israélienne a commencé. (https://www.mafhoum.com/press5/159C73.htm)

References

  1. ^ ספר מוצקין‎, p. 174. "הציונים יוצאים בכלל מנקודת-הראות, שחלוקת המקצועות בין היהודים היא מטבעה מלאכותית, ואין ברצונם רק לעסוק ולחקור מי הוא האשם בתולדות יצירת התנאים הללו, אלא הם ניגשים בעוז להפוך ולעצב מחדש את התנאים הכלכליים האלה, מרצון עצמי ועל בסיס עצמאי. קיווינו אמנם שהעתיד ישנה בכלל את הנסיבות החברתיות-הכלכליות ואת יחסי-האדם ההדדיים, כי מכל מקום יחדל ניצול האדם בידי האדם."‎
  2. ^ Demographic history of Palestine (region)
  3. ^ Jabotinsky, Ze'ev (December 1962). "Sunk without a trace". The Selected Writings of Ze'ev Jabotinsky (PDF). South African Betar. p. 26.
  4. ^ Ber Borochov, Poalei Tziyon Peace Manifesto
  5. ^ Open letter to Gandhi
  6. ^ Quoted in Ilan Troen, Imagining Zion (2003), p. 57. Cited to a 1931 book written by Granovsky.
  7. ^ Ussishkin, Menachem (1912). "Third Journey to the Land of Israel". ספר אוסישקין‎ [Book of Ussishkin] (published 1933). p. 133. ראיתי את מושבות האנגלים במצרים. האנגלים הכניסו שמה אדמיניסטרציה שלהם, קפיטליזם, מסלות ברזל, דואר, טלגרף! אך אם תשאלו את הערבים, הרוצים הם לחיות תחת שלטונה של אנגליה, תשמעו תשובה שלילית, שכן האנגלים מבקשים שם את טובת עצמם ולא את תקנתם של אוכלוסי הארץ. התפקיד שלנו צריך להיות שונה מזה לגמרי. עם העולם הישן הזה, עם עולם המזרח, אנו צריכים להתאחד. אנו צריכים להביא להם אחים לגזע, תרבות־אמת, תרבות של קיום, לא תרבות־שוא, אנו צריכים להשיב לתחיה את עולם הרוח שלהם, ולא את עולם החומר בלבד. ורק על ידי שיהא נשען על המזרח רב־המיליונים ישיב לו עם ישראל את כבודו כבשנים קדמוניות.‎ {{cite book}}: templatestyles stripmarker in |title= at position 1 (help)
  8. ^ "Zion, Whence Cometh My Help" in Speeches, Articles and Letters of Israel Zangwill
  9. ^ Letters and Papers of Chaim Weizmann, volume A3, page 94.
  10. ^ "Zionism—Alive and Triumphant" in The Nation, March 12, 1924
  11. ^ Weizmann, Chaim (13 March 1923). "A Bridge between East and West". In Litvinoff, Barnet; A. Chalom, Nehama (eds.). The Letters and Papers of Chaim Weizmann. Series B. Vol. 1. Jerusalem: Israel University Press (published 1983). p. 383. Address to American Journalists and Publicists.
  12. ^ Washington conference speech reproduced in The New Palestine, 20 January 1939.
  13. ^ Ben Gurion, Memoirs (1970)
  14. ^ David Ben-Gurion to Palestinian nationalist Musa Alami 1934, quoted in Shabtai Teveth, Ben-Gurion and the Palestinian Arabs: From Peace to War (1985), p. 140.
  15. ^ Shlomo Kaplansky, 26 June 1914, in ha-Aḥdut, Iss. 35 https://www.nli.org.il/en/newspapers/?a=d&d=hadt19140626-01, Jerusalem, pp. 1-2.]
  16. ^ Private letter, Jerusalem, March 24, 1922. In Henrietta Szold: Life and Letters (by Marvin Lowenthal)
  17. ^ Ten Essays
  18. ^ "‎⁨The Claim of the Jew" in The Maccabaean⁩ (1916⁩)
  19. ^ Penslar, Derek J. (2020-08-18). "Theodor Herzl, Race, and Empire". In Maciejko, Paweł; Ury, Scott (eds.). Making History Jewish. BRILL. pp. 185–209. doi:10.1163/9789004431966_011. ISBN 978-90-04-43197-3. Retrieved 2026-04-21.
  20. ^ Private letter to Nordau [1]
  21. ^ Judah Leon Magnes, Like All the Nations?, pp. 29-30.
  22. ^ Jerusalem speech reproduced in Hapo'el Hatza'ir 3.7.1931. "העוֹלם יהיה מוּכרח ללכת ליַשב ארצוֹת נשַמוֹת, אוֹתן הארצוֹת של אסיה ואפריקה, הנתוּנוֹת כּיוֹם בּידי שלטוֹנוֹת של עמים שאינם יוֹדעים בּעצם לבנוֹת אוֹתן ואינם נוֹתנים לאחרים לעשׂוֹת זאת. וּבמקוֹם ההגירה הקוֹלוֹניאַלית של אירוֹפה בּמשך שנים רבּוֹת, ההגירה של מנצלים, המדכּאים את ילידי הארץ, יתחיל פּרוֹצס חדש של הגירת המוֹנים לעבוֹד, בּלי לנצל אחרים. וגוֹרלנוּ המר רצה שאֵת הדרך הזאת נפתח אנחנוּ."‎
  23. ^ In עם חזיון ההגנה‎ "לא באנו לארץ־ישראל כבוא חמסנים קולוניאליים. לא הבאנו אתנו יחס של "לבנים" ל"שחורים". לא באנו כגזע "שליט"."‎
  24. ^ Germany Poalei Zion conference speech reproduced in Davar vol. 1419, 28.1.1930 p. 2. "מיום שידיה של אירופה עוסקות בעבודה ישבנית ותרבותית עוד לא היתה עבודה ישובית מלאת צדק ויחסי יושר לגבי אחרים כעבודתנו אנו בארץ-ישראל. חובתו של כל אדם ישר להכיר באמת הזאת. לא היינו מעולם תנועה קולוניאלית, אלא תנועה של קולוניזציה. בעצם ידינו ישבנו את הארץ, לא עשינו זאת בידי אחרים."‎
  25. ^ Arthur Ruppin, Memoirs, Diaries, Letters, p. xv.
  26. ^ Ruppin, The Jews in the Modern World
  27. ^ "הנהג בהן מנהג דרך־ארץ"‎, in כל כתבי משה ליב ליליענבלום‎ p. 238. "האנגלים אחרי שכבשו את מצרים או ארץ אחרת וקנו אותה כבר בחזקה ובמשיכה וכחפצם למוץ את מסחרה ומשלח-ידה, או שתהיה הארץ הזו חומה לארצותיהם האחרות, ושתהיה הארץ הזו ארץ אנגלית ממש, חלק ממדינתה לגמרי, הם מושיבים שם "קולוניות אנגליות" (לא שיעבדו האנגלים שם את האדמה, אך שיסחרו את הארץ לארכה ולרחבה), מפיצים שם את לשונם, סדריהם, משפטיהם וכו' ומיסדים בה בתי-ספר, להפוך את המון העם הזר לבני ממשלתם. אבל אנחנו אין אנו כובשים לנו את הארץ, ואין לנו עסק עם יושביה מעם אחר ללמדם עברית ולייסד בעדם בתי-ספר, וכל ביאת אחינו שמה לא היתה אלא להוציא לחם מן הארץ."‎
  28. ^ כל כתבי יצחק בן-צבי‎, vol. 4 p. 16. "ה"דיקאפוליס" העברית העתידה תהא אמנם משונה מה"דיקאפוליס" היונית שלפני אלפים שנה וגם מתנגדת לה בכמה דברים: ראשית בזה, שמגמת הברית-הארצית שלנו היא לא שלטון פוליטי אלא בצור כלכלי, גם בחקלאות וגם בתעשיה ובמסחר; שנית — שמגמותיה התרבותיות הן ספוק צרכי עצמנו והשפעה על הגולה — ולא טמיעת הסביבה בכח האלמות והכפיה; והעיקר — שמגמתנו היא בכלל לא התקפה לשם שלטון על זולתנו, אלא הגנה על קיומנו והתבצרות פנימית לשם שחרור מעול זולתנו."‎
  29. ^ כל כתבי יצחק בן-צבי‎, vol. 4 p. 16. "אז תנוצל ארץ-ישראל לא כקולוניה, אלא כמטרופולין של העם העברי ושל הישוב יליד הארץ של עכשיו"‎
  30. ^ Hayim Greenberg, 1936, "Is Zionism Imperialistic", in Jewish Frontier, 1936-01, Vol. 3, Iss. 1, p. 11.
  31. ^ Max Nordau, 1898, הציונות ומתנגדיה‎, from the collection כתבים ציוניים‎, vol. 1 p. 100. "כבר כיום יש לנו ראיות לדבר, ששש מאות אלף הערבים הנמצאים כיום בארץ־הקודש ישמרו על יחסי שכנות טובה עם העולים היהודיים. "שאלת־הלשונות תשמש מכשול שאין להתגבר עליו !״"‎
  32. ^ כתבים ציוניים‎, vol. 4 p. 108. אבל בעליה הנוכחיים של האדמה אינם יודעים על כך ולא כלום. ומשום כך, כשבאים המסיתים ומספרים לערבים, שהציונים זוממים להציף את ארץ־ישראל ולהתיישב בה בהמוניהם, הם מאמינים, שפירושו של דבר הוא, שאדמתם תיגזל מהם ותימסר לרשותם של העולים החדשים. אין הם מביאים בחשבון את שטחי־האדמה, הנחשבים כיום ל״שוממים‎
  33. ^ כתבים ציוניים‎, vol. 2 p. 111. קשה מעט להבין, איך התחכמה החברה החדשה למצוא אדמה מספקת לכל המיליונים מבני ישראל אשר שבו מן הגולה, אם כל האדמה שהיו הערבים עובדים לפנים, כלומר רוב האדמה הטובה שבארץ־ישראל, נשארה בידם גם עכשיו ולא ניטל מהם כלום‎
  34. ^ Yehiel Tschlenow, Zion and Africa in the sixth Zionist congress chapter 4 (not sure what the original language is) "העמים מבקשים להם ארצות חדשות, קודם־כל, לא לשם התישבות, כי אם לשם ניצול... אלה הם המביעים העיקריים ליסוד מושבות אצל העמים. לנו אין כאלה. בין שאיפותיהם וכוונותיהם של עמי אירופה ובין שאיפותינו וכוונותינו אנו מפרידה תהום עמוקה, שאינה גלויה, לצערנו, לעיני כל כותבי־המאמרים למיניהם. ואסון רב היינו ממיטים על ראשנו, אלמלי היינו שוכחים את ההפרש היסודי הזה."‎
  35. ^ ספר מוצקין‎, p. 174. "הציונים יוצאים בכלל מנקודת-הראות, שחלוקת המקצועות בין היהודים היא מטבעה מלאכותית, ואין ברצונם רק לעסוק ולחקור מי הוא האשם בתולדות יצירת התנאים הללו, אלא הם ניגשים בעוז להפוך ולעצב מחדש את התנאים הכלכליים האלה, מרצון עצמי ועל בסיס עצמאי. קיווינו אמנם שהעתיד ישנה בכלל את הנסיבות החברתיות-הכלכליות ואת יחסי-האדם ההדדיים, כי מכל מקום יחדל ניצול האדם בידי האדם."‎
  36. ^ Hillel Silver, Vision and Victory, p. 42
  37. ^ Raef Zreik (2023). Decolonizing the Study of Palestine. Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 78-79.
  38. ^ Samir Abed-Rabbo (2024). "Herzl's Zionism and Settler Colonialism in Palestine". Arab Studies Quarterly: 37.
  39. ^ Rashid Khalidi (2020). The Hundred Years' War on Palestine.
  40. ^ TTN (2021-09-03). "A Defence of Liberal Zionism". The Third Narrative. Retrieved 2026-04-25.
  41. ^ Trude Strand (2025). Israel and the Gaza Strip Since 1967: A History of Occupation, Domination and Unilateralism. Bloomsbury Publishing. p. unknown page number.
  42. ^ K.M. Newton (2011). Modernizing George Eliot: The Writer as Artist, Intellectual, Proto-Modernist, Cultural Critic. p. 140.
  43. ^ Noura Erakat. Justice for Some. Stanford University Press. p. 28.

Sources

[edit]

Discussion on the Basis of the Zionist claim to Palestine

[edit]

This is no longer an RfC; there is a regular discussion in the discussion section. NorthernWinds❄️(talk) 22:34, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]


According to reliable sources, upon what was the Zionist claim to Palestine generally based?

  • A: The perceived superiority of the Jewish historical right to Palestine over that of the Palestinian Arabs (article status quo)
  • B: The perceived "historical right" to the "historical homeland" of the Jews (Note: Choosing this option defines the core claim without precluding or suppressing a detailed discussion of the "superiority of rights" within the body of the article)
  • C: Something else (not only combination of the other options)

17:53, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Background

[edit]

The status quo was first discussed independently here, then at here at WP:ORN.

Polling (Basis of the Zionist claim to Palestine)

[edit]
  • B Supported by over 10 sources while the status quo is claimed to be supported the 6 in the article but is actually supported by none of them. Instead, the current sources (as seen in the table) only say that Zionists believed that their right is superior, not that they based their claim on this supposed superiority. The additional source supporting A appear to be circular reporting. See the similarities:
  • Earlier, Wikipedia quote: The Zionist claim to Palestine was based on the notion that the Jews' historical right to the land outweighed that of the Arabs.
  • Sharif quote: This Zionist claim to Palestine was premised on the belief that the Jewish people’s claim to historical right to the land outweighed that of the Arab Palestinians already living there.
Even if we were to assume that this is not circular, and even if 2 additional citations were found for A, it would still be clear that this is a fringe theory that shouldn't be stated with attributions and certainly shouldn't be stated in Wikivoice in the lead. بادهای شمال ❄️ (talk) 10:29, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
that shouldn't be stated with attributions, did you mean without attributions? -- Cdjp1 (talk) 13:29, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think that option A needs to be treated as a fringe theory. بادهای شمال ❄️ (talk) 13:44, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, just seems like it was possible to be misinterpreted. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:43, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak B - Unfortunately the lede has become much a mess not summarising the body, and the text of A is not really covered in the body. I would like an option of B with an appending of the view of this right being the superior right, as is supported by sources, but such expansions is silly for inclusion in the lede. On the note of it being FRINGE and potentially CIRCULAR, one source that hasn't been included is Morris' 1999 "Righteous Victims" pages 139–140, which has a similar thread for consideration, where on the transfer of Palestinian Arabs that was discussed by the Zionist leaders of the burgeoning state, viewed the need for land to allow Jews from the diaspora to settle outweighed the right of Palestinian Arabs to continue living in the land. Now, as to this source supporting the notion of it being the basis, is weak, but that is not why I bring it up. I bring it up as it shows that such comparative weighing of rights is within the published literature prior to this article, and can be used in the article body to build out the necessary information. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 13:45, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option C. "The Zionist claim to Palestine was based on the perceived Jewish historical right to the land of Palestine. Zionists believed that the Jewish historical right to Palestine outweighed that of Palestinian Arabs." or something along these lines (closer to the older Wikipedia quote). Perhaps the word "superiority" is too inflammatory here. The important bit of information supported by many of the reliable sources listed in the table below is that Zionists considered the right of Palestinian Arabs but decided that their own Jewish right to Palestine was more important, while Palestinians believed the opposite. Shapira; Zionists regarded the denial of an Arab exclusive right to Palestine as a matter of negligible importance, Slate; In Palestinian eyes, this history far outweighs the Jewish claim to Palestine, Maoz; Consequently the major streams of these two movements denied for decades the legitimate rights of the other for national self-determination in this land, or part of it ... In comparison, many Zionists have not considered the Palestinians as a genuine nation, linked to Eretz Israel, but, rather, as a part of the Arab nation and region. David Ben-Gurion, leader of the Yishuv (Zionist community in Palestine) and later the Prime Minister of Israel for many years, used a strange argument to deny the right of the Palestinian Arab for national self-determination: He alleged in 1916 that most Arabs in Palestine were in fact descendants of the ancient Jewish peasants who lived on the land until the Muslim conquest in the 7th century, and who were subsequently Islamized and Arabized., Peteet [10] It also bolsters the mythicohistory of a Jewish claim to Palestine that outweighs any other claims. If a non-Jewish group were to be recognized as the indigenous, what would that imply about Zionist claims, Suarez [11] Zionist assertions that a Jewish, descent-based Biblical prerogative outweighed the Palestinians’ desire for self-determination were dismissed outright. etc. I oppose option B because it removes any discussion of the manner in which Zionists 'balanced rights'. Katzrockso (talk) 13:31, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Katzrockso, @Cdjp1 When I wrote option B I did not mean that the article should not talk about how they perceived their right as superior (in fact, I think that this bit of information is pretty important). I will now go ahead and clarify option B to say that it does not suggest that discussions on superiority of rights are to be avoided. بادهای شمال ❄️ (talk) 13:47, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, sorry if my comment insinuated such, I went on a bit of tangent more so that we seem to missing such information from the body, so that should be worked on. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 13:50, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, alright. I agree. بادهای شمال ❄️ (talk) 13:56, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Then what is the substantive difference between the options? Katzrockso (talk) 14:06, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    This RFC is to determine how best to sum up the "basis of the Zionist claim to Palestine", and therefore determine which statement is due for the lead. They cannot both be stated; it wouldn't make sense to say "their claim was based on their perceived historic right" and then say "their claim was based on the perceived superiority of their historic right"; this would be an awkward and illogical summary. Instead, further explanation of how their claim to the land related to that of the Palestinians (in the manner you have voted) would be better placed in the article body. @NorthernWinds might it be useful to indicate in the question that we are specifically asking what should be stated in the lead? I guess your note already implies this. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 16:07, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wh1pla5h99 I do not want to limit this RfC to the lead since I don't want to see option A coming back to the body and having to have an RfC all over again. I also believe that there will be decisive consensus here against option A either way. بادهای شمال ❄️ (talk) 16:36, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok that makes sense. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 16:42, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @NorthernWinds I agree that the entire article is important to pay attention to, but the lede is one of the most important, impactful, and problematic parts of the article, so I think starting to draft an alternative lede is still a good idea to focus on, if not limit. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 16:47, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    This is why I simplified this RfC. I initially made it about the Zionist claim to Palestine as a whole which would make us discuss the claims of different groups and will result in a mess. This RfC is focused on what it generally was. This way we are not only fixing the lead, but also preventing A from reappearing (I doubt that any source exists that attributes option A to a certain Zionist faction). بادهای شمال ❄️ (talk) 17:04, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Katzrockso Your wording indicate that you support option B, not option C.
    We also need to avoid such blanket statements (especially in the lead) about the "superiority" of the Jewish right since there were actually entire factions who did not believe in this. MENA Encyclopedia: Binationalists asserted that Palestine belonged equally to Palestinian Arabs and Jews and that its ultimate political disposition should be based on this principle—that Palestinians and Jews are equally entitled to national self-determination within the full territory.Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). بادهای شمال ❄️ (talk) 16:52, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that the question ultimately is about determining the language of the lead, I oppose removing the WP:DUE and encyclopedic information about how Zionists 'balanced' the supposed historical Jewish right with the rights of Palestinian Arabs, which is what option B would entail. Katzrockso (talk) 17:55, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I disagree with how you understand option B. It is ambiguous about this on purpose.
    To me it still seems like you support option B (that the claim is based on "historical rights") and just want to emphasize that you want to add the de-WP:SYNTHesized version of A (that Zionists believed their claim outweighed that of the Arabs). This would be essentially breaking option A into the truths that some Wikipedia editor blended together to make this frankenstatement. بادهای شمال ❄️ (talk) 18:19, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, I don't think it's fair to say that the original option A is so egregiously wrong as to warrant characterization as a "frankenstatement". I think it was a good faith attempt at summarizing the source material, which can be difficult when editors are trying to draw from a number of different sources and make the point succinct enough for the lead of a Wikipedia article. The line between summary and SYNTH can sometimes be difficult to distinguish, as it depends on whether an editor believes the sources directly support the wording.
    Additionally, I don't think options A and B are logically exclusive, which is why I think the RfC is malformed and would better ask the question as to what would be the best language for the lead. I oppose the language in option B as the language for the lead, which is why I proposed option C.
    Elsewhere, you implied that I supported option A in a previous discussion, which I don't believe is a fair characterization of my position there, which was more limited to a criticism of the arguments against the existing wording. Katzrockso (talk) 01:16, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • B per @NorthernWinds:. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 15:46, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • The options in this RFC are confusing. The options are so confusing that even when Katzrockso says they don't support B and offers an alternative, NorthernWinds insists that they actually support B. NorthernWinds also admits B is "ambiguous about this on purpose" – all the options in the RfC should be quite clear IMO. I do think workshopping this would have helped. So either we close the RfC and workshop, or we unambiguously state what the options are, and we include Katzrockso's proposal as an option in the RfC (I find Katzrockso's proposal to be best supported by the sources).VR (Please ping on reply) 01:17, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Vice regent Looking back I should've probably been explicit about it. I thought that by not discussing it we'd be focused on determining whether A is supported by sources, which was the original dispute.
    Right now I'd argue it's too late to edit this RfC. Close this then?
    As per SamuelShraga below, perhaps we don't have to do that. I can get behind Katzrockso's proposal if we make it "Zionists generally believed that...". This way we avoid the dispute that exists around Zionists wanted to create a Jewish state in Palestine with as much land, as many Jews, and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible. and save editors a lot of time. Also given that in the discussion prior to the RfC Katzrockso supported option A, and that @Cdjp1 previously implied that he thinks option A is true, maybe we should just ping the participants and see if they too change their mind of this. Currently counting by users who haven't been blocked/topic banned only one (Bluethricecreamman) supports option A.
    If Bluethrice changes their mind I believe we'd be able to swiftly close this with an option B without the addition of right superiority and in a later talk about whether we should add the rest of Katzrockso proposal (also note that whether we keep the superiority of rights in the lead wasn't discussed before this RfC). This will save a lot of editor time on RfCs and only make an RfC about the superiority of rights if neccesary بادهای شمال ❄️ (talk) 07:18, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Bluethricecreamman recap for you: do reliable sources support that the Zionist claim to Palestine generally based on the perceived superiority of the Jewish historical right to Palestine over that of the Palestinian Arabs or just that the claim was based on preceived historical rights? See the sources sections 1, 2 بادهای شمال ❄️ (talk) 07:23, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    As pinged, while I disagree with the description of it as blatant, presently we don't have sourcing to support it over option B (or maybe some other thing as option C). From what we already include in the article, while it may be inherent to view ones rights in a position as being greater than others, this being the basis as opposed to the specific right one is viewing as superior does seem off, especially with the context of this being in the lede. So, my position is while Zionists likely viewed their right as superior, viewing that right as superior is not the basis, but an effect of the basis. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 08:29, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the wording "basis" is just confused in general and would honestly prefer rewording the sentences in question to use more specific language, but the RfC was couched with it. Katzrockso (talk) 16:33, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    As for your alternative wording, I'd propose "widely" instead of "generally". Elsewhere you suggested adding something about biblical times, which I don't think is necessary and just muddles the question. Katzrockso (talk) 01:18, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • B / C. I don't think the RfC is confusing. The question is whether we should replace an obviously false (and circular) description of the basis of the Zionist claim to Palestine with a true one. I see Katzrockso's point as saying that we shouldn't in so doing omit something else, that the Zionists thought their claim outweighed the Arab claim to Palestine. Based on the sources provided, I think that the material Katzrockso wants to include is true and verifiable. With that in mind, I don’t want to quibble about questions of WP:DUE - replacing a false sentence with two true ones would be an improvement, and I think it’s just about possible we can get clear consensus around something like Katzrockso’s C, and close this early without a fight. Samuelshraga (talk) 06:55, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Samuelshraga The question is whether we should replace an obviously false (and circular) I did find a source for A that predates Wikipedia's addition (see below) but as I said previously even if 1 or 2 sources are found it's still a fringe theory بادهای شمال ❄️ (talk) 07:28, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Khalidi 2011 is marked as an essay in the journal, I think WP:RSOPINION applies. I also don't actually think it supports A, but even stipulating to your point doesn't change my !vote, which I saw you've also agreed with now. Samuelshraga (talk) 07:50, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • A and confused I have studied settler-colonialism as part of my academic work. The question's framing is also confusing to me. It creates a conflict between believing that one's rights to land are superior to that of the natives and the discourses used to defend this. But this is not seen as opposed in the scholarly work. Every colonial movement said its right to land was backed by ideology like the superiority of morality and religion. This is what gave them more right to it over the natives. When I read the sentence and the sources for it in the beginning of this article in footnote 13 they say Zionists also made this case. They had more right to the land than the Palestinians because they said they had a historical right to it. I do not understand why the B option is removing the most important part of this and only talking about the historical claim but not that this gave them more right to the land. The point of the historical claim was to claim exclusive and privileged right to it. Ismeiri (talk) 08:05, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if we were to assume that the 6 sources in footnote 13 support the statement (they do not), we still have 14 saying that the claim is rooted in historical rights (14>(6+2)). No matter how you look at this, statement A is seriously disputed. بادهای شمال ❄️ (talk) 08:48, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    No you are mistaken. In those sources authors do not deny Zionists said they had privileged right to the land over the natives. They say they did believe this. I have studied Slater, Khalidi, Gorny, Finkelstein and others. The lists only add parts where they say they defend this belief by saying they had a historical right to it. That is like only quoting European settlers or scholarship about them saying they had a right to native American lands because it was promised to them by Christ and leaving out they said this because they believed they had a privileged right to it over them! That list is very confusing to me. It should count how many sources say Zionists said they had a privileged right to the land over the Palestinian natives. If most sources say that then the sentence is correct. Ismeiri (talk) 15:40, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • A+B+C: None of the language proposed here acknowledges the idea behind the 1948 partitions: that more than one people may have some rights in a region, and that the political expression of this fact is division of the region. A is a travesty because, for many refugees, the choice was either Palestine or slaughter. The encyclopedic approach would be to weigh opinions, explain each with sympathy, and to give little or no prominence to WP:FRINGE opinions such as “the Jews deserve what they get” (for which, of course, we can find plenty of reliable sources).MarkBernstein (talk) 13:46, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that the RfC is no longer an RfC (I removed the tag). See below بادهای شمال ❄️ (talk) 14:02, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @MarkBernstein Hi, would you mind clarifying your vote here? This makes it looks like you are voting for all three options... Slava570 (talk) 12:01, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    A is misleading, historically unsound, and tendentious. It is, however, ardently supported by a group of editors. If this entire process is not to be completely wasted (IMHO the probable outcome, leading inexorably to Arbcom:PIA6), A must be incorporated somehow. B tries to appease the supporters of A by retaining the claim while making it less misleading, but my sense of the meeting is that A’s supporters will not accept it. Neither A nor B acknowledge that the alternative to some claim for a Jewish state was to continue the previous European policy, which had been the Final Solution. The article at present goes to great lengths to obscure the this, euphemistically (and in my opinion obscenely) referring to it as "a strong push factor". Hence, new language is indispensable, and so I endorse C as essential. PIA 1 was January 2008; the description of Zionism at that time was superior to the current state, not least because it reflected what proponents of Zionism thought they were doing. I urge whoever closes this to contemplate that 2008 state of the article and the enormous cost, in human effort and in Wikipedia reputation, that the project has borne. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:20, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • B We had a noticeboard discussion of this issue, and it is baffling to me that so many seem to be ignoring that now. That discussion found a very small number of sources supporting A, and every single one of those sources was challenged as being unfit. The discussion also found numerous sources supporting exclusion of language of "outweighing." I think we should add the RFC tag back as this is considered an RFC either way. Slava570 (talk) 12:02, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it still considered an RfC? I believe we are having a more productive discussion in the section below. If we don't reach consensus there, then that discussion can be considered a workshopping phase for a future RfC. Note that this RfC didn't have any prior workshopping.VR (Please ping on reply) 22:09, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Just made it clear that this is no longer an RfC NorthernWinds❄️(talk) 22:35, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Slava570 Many people understood from B things that I did not mean; this is why I removed the RfC tag. Also, given that two of the proponents of A have been topic-banned/banned for stonewalling, I think that a regular discussion with other contributors can save editors a lot of time NorthernWinds❄️(talk) 22:38, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    It's fine with me if we want to have more discussion first. However, I posted asking for a closer to articulate a result of the noticeboard discussion and they declined to do it because they said an RFC was happening. As a result, it looks like we have now missed the boat on that.
    I don't agree that the discussion below was productive. The way I see it, there was no acknowledgment of the numerous sources (which you mostly provided, mind you) in that noticeboard discussion. The result was three nearly identical options, none of which I support. Slava570 (talk) 22:44, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Slava570 Regarding a close (I am not ready yet to answer in the linked thread; feel free to make a comment). I do think that any closure should take into account this RfC (which is why I haven't closed it formally yet). Some participants do not think that it is SYNTH NorthernWinds❄️(talk) 22:51, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    At this point, I'm not blaming anyone, but I'm just very confused about what happened and what is now possible. It seems like the closer doesn't want to close. Should we relist the noticeboard discussion and see if someone else will do it? In any case, I think if we can't get a formal close for whatever reason, I think most people can acknowledge it somehow, especially the numerous sources that supported removing the superiority of rights, and the zero non-challenged sources that support including it. I feel like that should count for something. Slava570 (talk) 23:01, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    You're welcome to go ahead and relist it (but do follow the advice in the link) NorthernWinds❄️(talk) 23:10, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Did it... Wikipedia:Closure requests Slava570 (talk) 00:30, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    What sources "supported removing the superiority of rights"? Katzrockso (talk) 00:41, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion (Basis of the Zionist claim to Palestine)

[edit]
  • I would recommend changing the question to "What should the lead section say was the basis of the Zionist claim to Palestine?" This prevents breaking it up into two different questions that seem to solicit two separate answers. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 21:06, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    But then what about the issue in the article? Do we leave it up to a future RfC? I think that editors are capable enough of providing 2 answers to 2 related questions. Also you may want to wait with voting and opinioning until I finish exhausting the sources, which is going to happen tomorrow (too tired to finish today) بادهای شمال ❄️ (talk) 21:12, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure what you mean, isn't the issue that the current sentence is unfounded? If so then asking people what it should say (instead) should solve the issue. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 21:14, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue with the basis of the Zionist claim is more complex than you think. There are several bases and some factions had bases distinct to them (e.g. religious Zionists and the divine basis) but they were all united by the historical basis, which is why I think that it is the only one that deserves to go in the lead. Just wait until I am done compiling the sources for you ;) بادهای شمال ❄️ (talk) 21:31, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wh1pla5h99 I've simplified the RfC. I think there are enough sources to start making educated !votes. بادهای شمال ❄️ (talk) 10:15, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Katzrockso, @Cdjp1, @VidanaliK, @Vice regent, @Samuelshraga, @Ismeiri I've removed the RfC tag due to complaints that the RfC was unclear. Does anyone have suggestions? This RfC needs to ask whether option A is supported by the sources. Everything else is extra بادهای شمال ❄️ (talk) 09:10, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    To be honest with you I'm completely baffled about how it is supposed to be possible to edit in CTOPs. It seems that no matter how contested a sentence is, a small minority can challenge its removal (even months after it has been removed) and force this long and tedious process that makes it extremely laborious to get obvious nonsense removed from the article. Either we are not understanding the rules correctly or they are set up in such a way that this whole endeavor is a complete farce. If (and only if) there is a genuine consensus among scholars/experts about what the basis of Zionism is, then we should state that consensus. If not, then we should not try to create such a butchered and ad hoc claim that is of questionable validity, but remove it and just give the different points of view on what constituted the basis, or cause, or motivation of Zionism, depending on how different sources word it. If it is not obvious to us what the basis was, or it is only obvious that a lot of Zionist's say that the basis is the historical right, that some scholars say the basis was something else, then can we stop trying to force a simple factoid summary that is neither needed nor encyclopedic. In other words, I would be in favour of anyone directly editing the article in good faith, and if that fails yet again, let's talk it over, and then maybe we avoid the RFC charade. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 10:25, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wh1pla5h99 It appears to me that the only disputed part/problematic part about this RfC is whether we include discussions about outweighing in the lead, even though this was never the topic of the RfC. Still, I believe this is important to discuss and reach an agreement on. Nevertheless, I think we all agree that statement A has to go and option B should be added (be it with addition of the outweighing of rights as suggested by Katzrockso or not). 20 sources vs 2 is a crystal clear scholar consensus and all editors but 1 agree that it should go. I've edited.
    Personally I find myself in favor of a variation of Katzrockso's proposal بادهای شمال ❄️ (talk) 11:10, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree that pretty much no one here has supported A and everyone has supported B (with or without caveats and extra information), so it is fine to replace for now and move on to a discussion about the "outweighed" claim being due for lead. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 11:28, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems like we have consensus to replace "The Zionist claim to Palestine was based on the notion that the Jews' historical right to the land outweighed that of the Arabs" with "The Zionist claim to Palestine was based on the perceived Jewish historical right to the land of Palestine. Zionists generally believed that the Jewish historical right to Palestine outweighed that of Palestinian Arabs." I would support this change. Katzrockso, Samuelshraga, NorthernWinds it seems like you support it too. What about VidanaliK, Cdjp1 and Ismeiri? VR (Please ping on reply) 12:58, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    As I mentioned in my official 'vote' in this RfC, the second sentence of the replacement seems to end up in levels of specificity that are probably better for the article body. That being said, I'm not going to fight against the proposed replacement if all others find it acceptable. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 13:24, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with all that Cdjp1 said and as I said above I favor a variation of Katzrockso's proposal if the perceived superiority of rights is to be mentioned in the lead.
    While I support the outline of this proposal, I think a few changes need to be made:
    Regarding the first sentence: I think the wording I've added into the article (The Zionist claim to Palestine was based on perceived historical rights dating back to biblical times) describe the sources best and avoids ambiguity regarding what historical right we are speaking of (is it the Balfour declaration? The partition plan vote? They're both historical now) and also align us with a lot of sources who specifically state that this perceived right is thousands of years old. I would also change "land of Palestine" to "Palestine" to avoid mimicking "land of Israel", to be consistent with the rest of the article and for simplicity.
    I also think that we shouldn't say historical rights in the second sentence. If you look closely none of our sources talk about a Palestinian historical right being weighed. Just leave it as "Jewish right to Palestine outweighed..." بادهای شمال ❄️ (talk) 13:56, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    NorthernWinds: multiple sources mention Zionists invoking non-Biblical sources for a historic right to Palestine, namely the historic presence of Jews in the land. This is mentioned (in the quotes below) by Alam, Khalidi, Frieland, etc.VR (Please ping on reply) 17:16, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that "biblical times" neccesarily imply that they based their claim on the history in the bible. It is just a nice way to say "thousands of years ago" and it also fits in nicely because the history they are talking about take place where the events in the bible occurred. بادهای شمال ❄️ (talk) 17:29, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we might be more accurate to write that "The Zionist claim to Palestine was based on the perceived Jewish historical right to some part of the land of Palestine. This might make the second sentence less divisive, as the Jewish right to a homeland could be balanced by a Palestinian right to a homeland. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:40, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not support this version. It makes weak what many sources say is true. Zionists did believe their claim to the land was superior to native Palestinians. Sources also say they gave ideological defenses of this belief that were historical and religious. We can include that too. This will be good: The Zionist claim to Palestine was based on the notion that the Jews' historical right to the land outweighed that of the Arabs, as justified by perceived historical and religious ties to it. What do you all think? Ismeiri (talk) 15:46, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Your revert has now removed sources. Why don't you at least put the sources back in? Slava570 (talk) 15:48, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I hadn't even finished reviewing sources for this RfC before it was unilaterally made not an RfC. I am now rather confused. Are we to take it that only the feedback of those who come pre-decided was needed to make a decision? Simonm223 (talk) 15:50, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The RFC was closed as people objected to its framing. I have removed the disputed claim for now per WP:ONUS. Let's reach a consensus for what should be included. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 15:56, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure how you are getting from Zionists did believe their claim to the land was superior to native Palestinians to The Zionist claim to Palestine was based on the notion that the Jews' historical right to the land outweighed that of the Arabs. Can you see that these are two very different claims, and that the former cannot be translated to the latter? Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 15:49, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Many source agree that Zionists sought part of the land of Palestine. Some thought their claim superior, others thought it coequal, and others thought the two claims easily reconcilable. Others thought simply that, in the current emergency, refugees had to be sent somewhere, and chose to send them to part of Palestine without much consideration of claims. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:12, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @MarkBernstein what are the sources that say Jewish historical right to Palestine was "coequal" to that of Palestinian Arabs? VR (Please ping on reply) 17:07, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @VR: I think Chaim Weizmann thought this; see https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-207006/. I suppose Martin Buber: https://www.bjpa.org/content/upload/bjpa/samu/Samuel%20Brody%20Shma%20Buber%20Binationalism.pdf. Obviously, Arthur Balfour: Balfour Declaration. The United Nations:United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine. I believe Fania Oz-Salzberger currently holds this position, as did her father, Amos Oz; see their book Jews and Words. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:34, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I do think it's significant that the article you linked starts by describing Buber's position thus: Buber’s generally unpopular support of a bi-nationalist solution to the Zionist-Arab conflict. That certainly supports that he, individually, held that view but it also supports this was not a majority view. I am concerned that we should avoid loading down our text with edge cases. Simonm223 (talk) 17:38, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The document continues up to that point, the primary political tradition in Zionism had been the Labor movement, descended from Herzl’s “political” Zionism; it saw the primary goal of Zionism as statehood for the protection of Jewish bodies and independence for the protection of Jewish honor. Influenced as well by European socialist tendencies, it certainly strove to establish internal justice in the laws of the Jewish state and conceived itself as dealing with the Arabs as justly as possible — with the proviso that just dealings with the Arabs could never be subordinated to the need for physical security. Like I take it this work is going for as much as nuance as possible and even so it's presenting Buber's view as being an outlier. Encyclopedias are summary. We should not exclude this view. But we should not give it undue focus either. Simonm223 (talk) 17:43, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Buber alleged, even this supposedly non-utopian, limited goal of Zionism could never be met along the path chosen by the Zionist mainstream: Simonm223 (talk) 17:44, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with this. The lead should summarize the prevailing views of Zionists and not the tiny minorities with no ideological or practical influence Katzrockso (talk) 20:29, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Naom Chomsky: I was interested in socialist, binationalist options for Palestine, and in the kibbutzim and the whole cooperative labor system that had developed in the Jewish settlement there (the Yishuv)...The vague ideas I had at the time were to go to Palestine, perhaps to a kibbutz, to try to become involved in efforts at Arab-Jewish cooperation within a socialist framework, opposed to the deeply antidemocratic concept of a Jewish state (a position that was considered well within the mainstream of Zionism).[1] بادهای شمال ❄️ (talk) 20:36, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Due to how he formatted this sentence, I'm genuinely unsure if Chomsky is referring to his own position of Arab-Jewish cooperation as "a position that was considered well within the mainstream of Zionism", or to "the deeply antidemocratic concept of a Jewish state".
    I presume he's referring to his own position as a then labor Zionist, but I don't want to make such assumptions in this topic area. I was hoping its original context would clarify the matter for me, though it seems I had no such luck. (I'm trying to clarify this now to avoid a potential dispute over interpretation later, as is unfortunately so common on this page) Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 22:16, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Chomsky is not a WP:BESTSOURCE on Zionism or even a particularly good source outside of his field of expertise, which is linguistics. He is widely repudiated for his work on e.g. Cambodia, Bosnia. Katzrockso (talk) 23:01, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The lead says Philosopher. Either way I am pretty sure you know more than me. بادهای شمال ❄️ (talk) 23:04, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Largely the philosophy of linguistics, but also a little in the philosophy of cognitive science where it intersects with language. His work outside of that is not a good source (e.g. any of his political philosophy), bar maybe some of his work on anarchism might be usable in a more limited sense. Katzrockso (talk) 16:08, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, philosophy is my end of the block and Chomsky's reputation has taken a few hits in that regard. There was, of course, his insistence that humans had a unique physical structure in the brain for language (found to be false), there was his rather embarrassing showing in the Foucault debate and then there was all the stuff about Cambodia and Bosnia and then there was the several times he came up on media protecting men with a reputation for inappropriate behaviour toward women in academia. Basically Chomsky has a reputation for being controversial that outdistances his reputation for having anything useful to say. In a way this is a similar situation to Buber just for a different reason. I wouldn't advocate to fully exclude Chomsky's views because he's certainly a notable scholar in political philosophy but, on account of his long history of controversies, I would want to avoid over-weighting him. Please note the only thing I was saying about Buber's reputation is that it was a minority position within Zionism per the source provided and I'm not trying to tar him with Chomsky's brush. Simonm223 (talk) 16:45, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Strong agree Chomsky is not a BESTSOURCE for Zionism or antisemitism or Middle East politics. This is actually a better use of Chomsky than most in this topic area, as he's reflecting on the thing he does know about: his own youthful involvement, and it's not negliible, given he had become very critical of Zionism by the time he wrote this, that he recalls the Buber position being mainstream back then. I wouldn't use this in the article, but I wouldn't dismiss it instantly. BobFromBrockley (talk) 05:35, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    His personal experience of the Zionist movement is also a primary source and should not be used in an article like this. Not only because he was in the segment of supposedly binationalist Zionists and would consequently have reason to want to increase their supposed prominence, but because we shouldn't be using primary sources to contradict what secondary sources (like the MENA encyclopedia NorthernWinds cited earlier) say about a subject. Katzrockso (talk) 16:05, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Link to my comment with MENA encyclopedia بادهای شمال ❄️ (talk) 16:22, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I entirely agree with @Bobfrombrockley on this. Simonm223 (talk) 16:46, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Views that were widely held in (say) 1912 were not widely held in 1958. Zionism has a long history, and positions like Weizmann’s and Balfour’s and (ahem) the UN Resolution that created Israel and Palestine are not to be dismissed as fringy. To dismiss Chaim Weizmann as having "no ideological or practical influence" is a bit much. To dismiss Balfour as having "no ideological or practical influence" is preposterous. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:33, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @MarkBernstein Are you saying that the UN resolution was a Zionist or drafted by Zionists? (not in the ideolohical sense but in the organizational affiliation sense) بادهای شمال ❄️ (talk) 21:35, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    UN Resolution 181 was consistent with much Zionist thought, was composed with that intention, and was drafted to be acceptable to Zionists as well as to Arab states. It was understood at the time of its passage in this sense; for example, the NY Times said "it does not go so far, in territorial terms, as most Zionists had hoped. It will grievously disappoint the Arabs. But it is the decision of the United Nations; it was the best decision which that great agency of world opinion was able to discover, and we trust that it will have the willing compliance of the two peoples whose future it involves.” MarkBernstein (talk) 22:55, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Amos Elon, The Israelis: Founders and Sons: (12 Zionist Congress, 1921) "Reading the minutes for these long-forgotten discussions, one is amazed to see how many Zionists at that time still felt that it was entirely feasible to satisfy the demands of Zionism without unduly annoying the Arabs." ((p. 174). “Unlike most Zionist leaders, Weizmann, between 1916 and 1921, came to know some of the leading figures in the Arab world. With his great charm and gift of persuasion he set about relentlessly assuaging Arab fears, preaching the idea of Arab-Zionist cooperation, and winning to it Arab friends. He did not lose sight of Arab national aspirations. But he assumed that the national sentiments of the Arabs would focus on Baghdad, Mecca, or Damascus; they would find their “natural and complete satisfaction” in a proposed Arab kingdom centered around these historic sites." (p. 175) MarkBernstein (talk) 23:14, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    For "in part" see Basel Program بادهای شمال ❄️ (talk) 17:48, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it does say that it does not go as far as they hoped, suggesting that Zionists wanted something beyond "in Palestine" بادهای شمال ❄️ (talk) 22:59, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • This edit seems to have removed a bnuch of reliable sources as well as disputed text. Shouldn't the sources go back in Ismeiri? BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:12, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    It's alright for now since we still have it in the diff (and also below where I collected them). After this discussion is done we can just take it out of the diff and back in the page بادهای شمال ❄️ (talk) 17:43, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I agree with the principle of splitting the material and keeping it. I have the same position as Cdjp1: I'm not convinced the second proposed sentence is due for the lead, but I'll put that aside if it means we can find a consensus. I also agree with NorthernWinds' edits to the proposed text.
    If I understand @MarkBernstein correctly, the objection is that some Zionists at different points have sought to accommodate Palestinian rights and claims on the land through strategies of partition or binationalism? And that some Zionists at some points based their claim on urgent necessity (e.g. after the Holocaust) more than on historical rights? I agree with those in principle, I would suggest adding them with supporting sources to the body and then revisiting this statement. In the meantime, with the understood caveat that what we are inserting into the lead is a generalisation that didn't always hold true, I'd still support this compromise. Samuelshraga (talk) 17:25, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    As already noted, I would support my own proposal. I believe it best reflects the sources. Katzrockso (talk) 22:59, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I would be willing to accept your proposal as a compromise. Should that replace the current claim in both the lead and the body? Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 09:37, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"mythicohistory of a Jewish claim to Palestine" (as stated in one of the sources above) The term typically describes a fusion of myth and history (as seen in this text to shape the narratives of nation, and other "constructions of personal and collective identities". How important is Palestine to Jewish national narratives, and how have Zionist political narratives affected that importance? Dimadick (talk) 13:21, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Options up to 7 May

[edit]

We seem to have 3 options upto today. We want to replace "The Zionist claim to Palestine was based on the notion that the Jews' historical right to the land outweighed that of the Arabs" with either:

  • 1. "The Zionist claim to Palestine was based on the perceived Jewish historical right to the land of Palestine. Zionists generally widely believed that the Jewish historical right to Palestine outweighed that of Palestinian Arabs."
  • 2. "The Zionist claim to Palestine was based on the perceived Jewish historical right to the land of Palestine dating back to biblical times. Zionists generally believed that the Jewish historical right to Palestine outweighed that of Palestinian Arabs."
  • 3. "The Zionist claim to Palestine was based on the notion that the Jews' historical right to the land outweighed that of the Arabs, as justified by perceived historical and religious ties to it."

The first proposal seems to have the most support, but one hard oppose (Ismeiri). I'm personally fine with all three options. I think we are all so close we can have consensus without a lengthy RFC. VR (Please ping on reply) 13:21, 7 May 2026 (UTC) made edits (in red) to options based on feedback belowVR (Please ping on reply) 00:00, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I miss that all three of these had support? I'm against all three. Are you even trying to gain consensus? Slava570 (talk) 13:29, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Slava570 I think this comment doesn't contribute to a civil environment. Do you have any suggestions? بادهای شمال ❄️ (talk) 13:44, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
All three of these are nearly identical. What happened to the version that you tried to add to the article earlier? Slava570 (talk) 13:45, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What I inserted in the article is is present in option 2 (though slightly modified). Several (two) editors think "land of Palestine" should change to "Palestine" (this would make the first sentence identical to what I initially put in the article).
These versions also do not implement some my other suggestions, endorsed by Samuelsharaga. It's also important to take Katzrockso's input into consideration.
I do think that a middle ground is possible, given that we sort out whether we mention the outweighing of rights in the lead or not.
Assuming we don't, I am certain that we can easily reach a consensus without an RfC. Assuming we do, I think a combination of these options can get the most editors behind it: The Zionist claim to Palestine was based on the perceived Jewish historical right to Palestine dating back to biblical times/said to be thousands of years old/said to extend to ancient times/[no inclusion of timeframe]. Zionists generally/mostly (/The majority of Zionists) believed that the Jewish right to Palestine outweighed that of the Palestinian Arabs/Palestine's Arabs
I still think that the third option presented by VR is SYNTH/fringe/frankenstatement and shouldn't be stated anywhere, not in the article nor the lead. بادهای شمال ❄️ (talk) 14:00, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I just looked at what you added one more time. VR's comment above includes this in option 2: Zionists generally believed that the Jewish historical right to Palestine outweighed that of Palestinian Arabs. I don't see that part in your edit. Slava570 (talk) 14:10, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, the first sentence in option 2 was a slightly modified version of my sentence. Also, VR did implement some of my advice so I don't think it's fair to say that they are not trying to achieve consensus.
Currently as I read it there is no consensus around the lead inclusion of the outweighing of rights (3 vs 2) but since no one firmly opposed it (and the 3 who prefer not to said that they do not mind inclusion unless someone firmly opposes) I think that currently it can proceed. Do you firmly/lightly oppose the inclusion of the outweighing of rights? It may change the course of the discussion. بادهای شمال ❄️ (talk) 14:23, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@NorthernWinds, which part of your suggestion is not implemented in #2? Is it "land of Palestine" -> "Palestine"? VR (Please ping on reply) 18:09, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Vice regent yes. Rarely do people refer to Palestine as the "land of Palestine". I'd say it's even rarer than "land of Israel" in my experience NorthernWinds❄️(talk) 20:13, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
confirmed NorthernWinds❄️(talk) 20:14, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with NorthernWinds here. Katzrockso (talk) 20:25, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with any version of what you have written @NorthernWinds. I don't think we are likely to reach a compromise that completely excludes the "outweighed" part. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 14:20, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We also had an entire discussion about this issue Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Basis of the Zionist claim to Palestine#https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Basis_of_the_Zionist_claim_to_Palestine
And today someone asked rather than closing that discussion with a summary of the consensus, to close it without any comment because of the new discussion started here.
In my opinion, the result of this discussion was crystal clear, that the sources do not support "outweighing." This process has been extremely difficult to navigate. A good process would have waited for the results of that discussion first, or at least acknoweldged it in some way. Slava570 (talk) 14:30, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
My contention in that discussion was that the original claim literally made no sense. This at least makes sense, and there are at least some sources that support it - though whether there is enough to say it is "generally" what Zionists believed I don't know. What would be useful is if someone could demonstrate that there is acknowledgment of the "outweighing" Zionist belief from a range of scholars, and not just from a biased selection of sources. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 14:43, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me it would still help for an uninvolved closer to articulate the results of that discussion. I was literally just asked about this today, and maybe there is still time to ask them to go ahead with it... Wikipedia:Closure requests#Other types of closing requests Slava570 (talk) 14:49, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well I understand their rationale. It might be better to wait until this discussion concludes, and then have a close that considers both discussions. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 14:55, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
OK, how about this? I'll ask them to hold off on closing and we'll update the request when this conversation concludes...
In the meantime I'm against all three options. If it's just the first sentence, then pick one out of a hat and let's move on.
If we want to include the second sentence, then it should be accompanied by new sources that reflect a range of scholars as Wh1pla5h99 says above. And we should add the sources that contradict that statement to the article as well, even if the sentence itself cannot be changed. Slava570 (talk) 15:01, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sources that support the second sentence of option 1 were already provided in the (now defunct) RfC discussion, as well as the ORN discussion. Katzrockso (talk) 16:15, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I am pretty sure we already have enough scholars speaking of the rights outweighing to say that that Zionists generally thought that their right outweighed. Currently we are at 2 for inclusion and 4 for exclusion of the outweighing in the lead. I say we just leave it out and come back later after the article is updated with more material on this (I am aware this contradicts the comment I made a moment ago). Let's just get it over with بادهای شمال ❄️ (talk) 16:29, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Out of lead but included in body? Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 16:37, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely بادهای شمال ❄️ (talk) 16:40, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with that. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 16:43, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus does not mean unanimity and it is not required to hold an RfC to implement changes to the article. Katzrockso (talk) 16:11, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is true in theory, but not in practice. In reality, next to no changes are allowed to the article. Do you have something against finding a wider range of sources for the claim? Also, do you have anything against adding legitimate sources that contradict the claim, without changing the text of the article itself? Slava570 (talk) 16:18, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I still think option 1 remains the best, and would be an improvement over the status quo. Keep in mind that we can always discuss further changes down the line. Katzrockso (talk) 16:13, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Imo change land of Palestine to just Palestine and add it to the article. As you said, we can come back later after someone (me) adds more info on this to the article بادهای شمال ❄️ (talk) 16:25, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Currently, I think Option 1 is my preferred wording (though I'm open to proposed alternatives to the word "generally" here, as it reads as rather clunky to me). Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 16:39, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Butterscotch Beluga I proposed "widely" above. Katzrockso (talk) 20:26, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's a much better wording. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:00, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I actually think that "widely" is more clunky. I support option 2 if we are to include the superiority of rights. NorthernWinds❄️(talk) 21:48, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have edited all the options (the edits clearly marked and signed).VR (Please ping on reply) 00:00, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Vice regent given that I'm unfortunately not sure we will be able to obtain a consensus on this question in this section, it might warrant the discussion about workshopping a potential new RfC on this question. The other RfC was initiated on 24 April 2026, so to reduce overlap, we could try to wait until one more week before initiating a new RfC. Katzrockso (talk) 00:46, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Katzrockso of the 3 options listed in this subsection, almost everyone finds either the 1st or 2nd to be acceptable. And the difference between the 1st and 2nd is pretty small. Why do you think we can't achieve consensus? VR (Please ping on reply) 01:57, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
First option seems most fitting to me (closest to C vote above) - Asdfjrjjj (talk) 10:41, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion has stalled. Should we ask someone to close this? NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 07:22, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Just did NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 07:25, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Informal discussions are rarely formally closed. If we want a formal closure, it might have been better to start a RfC or resume the aforementioned RfC. Katzrockso (talk) 10:21, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Katzrockso I am personally not sure how to assess our consensus regarding the inclusion of the outweighing of rights, and I do not think this requires a formal RfC (all of our other opinions/suggestions are relatively close to one another). Mainly, I am concerned and want a formal close on whether the status quo is properly supported by the sources, which has been disputed but also reaffirmed by editors. NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 10:46, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What we currently have is a frankstein discussion mixed between an informal discussion and a partially aborted RfC. I don't know how a closer would be expected to weigh the !votes in the RfC, the comments in the discussion section.
Especially given that the request at WP:CR is asking for a double close of both this discussion and the discussion at WP:ORN (which includes 3 now-topic-banned editors). Katzrockso (talk) 03:13, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
A frankencussion!
How to weigh the !votes is up to the closer. If you think no one will close this I think it's fine to add either option 1 or 2 in the meantime (these do seem to enjoy consensus) NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 05:26, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Editors are also saying there's RFC overload, so if there's a way to establish a consensus on an issue without one, I think most editors would appreciate it. It's sometimes ok to think and act outside the box in relatively small ways. Slava570 (talk) 11:05, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
While an informal discussion can come to a consensus, it can then be challenged (or flat out ignored) as not being a formally determined consensus. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:12, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Table of current sources

[edit]
Source Quote cited in article More direct/other statements by the authors on this issue
Gorny 1987, p. 210 "Despite this unequivocal conclusion Ben-Gurion did not despair of achieving co-operation with the Arabs. It was rather because he saw no hope of compromise in the political sphere that he sought other areas for collaboration, based on four principles: maximum political caution; respect for the Arab as a human being; avoidance of intervention in Arab dynastic disputes; and avoidance of exploitation of the social tensions in Arab society.

Ben-Gurion, as usual, did not confine himself to vague theorizing. Two weeks later he presented the joint secretariat with a daring and imaginative plan: ‘Plans for establishing a Political Regime in Palestine’.

This plan was based on several underlying assumptions: (a) ‘Palestine belongs to the Jewish people and to the Arabs who reside therein’. (b) The right of the Jewish people was not conditional on external agreement or the will of others. It derived from the insoluble ties of the Jewish people to their historical homeland. (c) The demand of the Jewish people for self-determination was justified by universal values of justice. (d) The moral worth of the Zionist enterprise stemmed from the Jewish predicament and its justification from the fact that the country was barren and no people, apart from the Jews, were ready to cultivate it.

This set of assumptions was intended to stress the equal status of the Jews vis-a-vis the rest of the world, and to provide the basis for their superior right to Palestine. Thus, the distinction he drew between the Jewish people and the Arab masses became a basic tenet of Zionist thought."

"One cannot attempt to answer these questions without clarifying some of the Zionist tenets which determined the nature of the Arab-Jewish problem. Zionism has always adhered to four social and political tenets, without which its existence would have been pointless and its efforts doomed to failure. All these principles had a powerful influence, direct or indirect, on its policy towards the Arabs. The first principle was the desire for the territorial concentration of the Jewish people in Palestine, their historic homeland, Eretz Yisrael-The Land of Israel. This claim for a homeland, in the name of an historical right by a people not residing within it, implied, a priori, a denial, whether moderate or extreme, of the exclusive rights of the Arab residents."[2]; It should be recalled that with the exception of several tens of thousands, the Jewish people were not residing in their country. Hence, recognition of their historical right to the country constituted the internal and outward justification for their return to the country.[3]
Shapira 1992, pp. 41–42 "The basic assumption regarding the right of Jews to Palestine—a right that required no proof—was a fundamental component of all Zionist programs. In contrast with other prospective areas for Jewish settlement, such as Argentina or East Africa, it was generally believed that no one could deny the right of the Jews to their ancestral land... The slogan 'A land without a people for a people without a land' was common among Zionists at the end of the nineteenth, and the beginning of the twentieth, century. It contained a legitimation of the Jewish claim to the land and did away with any sense of uneasiness that a competitor to this claim might appear." "One characteristic of European national movements (and Zionism was one of the later ones) was a plea for legitimacy, and legitimacy usually relied on a genealogy testifying to the antiquity of the nation, its historical rights to territory and sovereignty, the beauty of its national culture, and its contribution to textual threshold of the culture."[4]; Zionists regarded the denial of an Arab exclusive right to Palestine as a matter of negligible importance.[5]
Slater 2020 "According to the standard Zionist and then the Israeli narrative, for a number of reasons the land of Palestine rightfully belongs to the Jewish people—and no others, including today's Palestinians." "...In Palestinian eyes, this history far outweighs the Jewish claim to Palestine, which is ultimately based on the biblical account in which God promised the land of Palestine to the Jews, who subsequently conquered, inhabited, and ruled that land until they in turn were conquered and expelled by the Roman Empire two thousand years ago"[6]
Khalidi 2006 "[T]he Zionist claim to Palestine, which since even before the establishment of the state of Israel had depended in some measure on arguing that there was no legitimacy to the competing Arab claim" "We’re talking about what the basis of the Zionist claim to Palestine is. There are four bases. One is the divine argument. One is the argument from positive law, in other words, the League of Nations, the Balfour Declaration. One is the argument from natural law, that is, the need. One is the argument from historical connection. These are the four arguments."[7]
Alam 2009 "Zionism was a messianic movement to restore Palestine to its divinely appointed Jewish owners... Conversely, the Palestinian, whether his ancestors were the ancient Canaanites or Hebrews, would forfeit all rights to his lands; he had become a usurper." "The Zionist claim to Palestine is based on 'a historical connection': the presence of Jews (more accurately, Hebrews) in ancient Palestine most of whom left after the second destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in 70 CE."[8]
Sternhell 1999 "Like all Zionists, Gordon did not recognize the principle of majority rule, and he refused to acknowledge the right of the majority to 'take from us what we have acquired through our work and creativity.' Moreover, he had confidence in the spiritual vitality of the Yishuv, its energy and motivation, and believed it was supported by the entire Jewish people. In 1921, he spoke in much stronger terms than he had between 1909 and 1918: 'For Eretz Israel, we have a charter that has been valid until now and that will always be valid, and that is the Bible, and not only the Bible.'... And now came the decisive argument: 'And what did the Arabs produce in all the years they lived in the country? Such creations, or even the creation of the Bible alone, give us a perpetual right over the land in which we were so creative, especially since the people that came after us did not create such works in this country, or did not create anything at all.' The founders accepted this point of view. This was the ultimate Zionist argument." "...All this is liable to arouse understandable fears among those who are unshakably attached to the total and unquestioning worldview of the founders and who wish to base Zionism on the eternal historical right of the Jewish people to Eretz Israel."[9]
  • I would suggest that sources be presented neutrally, without emphasis and without wikipedians' own commentary inside the source text itself. We can certain interpret the sources ourselves in the discussion section. This way, we can all contribute to a single set of sources, which will be helpful in achieving consensus.VR (Please ping on reply) 17:58, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this, and have no objection to unnecessary commentary being removed from the sources Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 18:01, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, remove it بادهای شمال ❄️ (talk) 20:37, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Just did بادهای شمال ❄️ (talk) 20:39, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Vice regent I don't see how the sources you added for A support that the claim was based on the superiority of rights. They just seem to support that Zionists viewed their rights as superior. A few alternative statements by these authors:
  1. Gideon: In his book The Zionist Ideology he has an entire chapter dedicated to "The Right to The Land", in which he had sections for different claims. One may usefully draw a distinction between the “mythic” and the “ideological” components of the Jewish claim to Eretz Israel. The former refers to the primordial, subjectively induced ideas that motivate the actions of groups—indeed, often masses—of people quite irrespective of their demonstrable objective validity. The latter refers to the rationalized formulations of putatively objective ideas that inspire and direct the actions of groups of people. In this sense, the religious claim fell into the mythic category, insofar as it rested entirely upon belief in the divine promise. Its ideological counterpart was at least partially reflected in what has here been described as the objective dimension of the religious claim, as well as in the appeal for the opportunity to fulfill the unique mission of Judaism. It found weightier expression, however, in what orthodox believers and secular Jews alike proffered as the “historical right” of the Jews.
  2. Massad: He said "some Zionists" (and also didn't say that these "some Zionists" based their claim on the superiority of rights)
  3. Gans and Sternhell offer stronger statements about the basis in sources for option B
I am not going to go one by one for all of them but none of the quotes you've brought forth support that the claim was based on the superiority of rights. Somehow almost all of those who directly comment on what the Zionist claim to Palestine/Jewish claim to Palestine was based on mention the historical right but not the superiority of rights. Even when authors comment on this directly (e.g. Gans) in support of B, you've brought quotes by them and said that they support option A. Respectfully, I think you may be misunderstanding these sources.
Most of these sources are good sources for "Zionists believed that their claim to Palestine outweighed that of the Arabs" but not good sources for option A. Do you think it'd be better to split these off into "sources for Zionist belief in the outweighing of rights"? NorthernWinds❄️(talk) 09:08, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Also pretty nice is that Gideon seems to have reached the same Lilienblum quote that I found One of the earliest invocations of historical right was made by Moshe Leib Lilienblum in 1882 when he wrote: “We have an historical right [to Eretz Israel] which has neither lapsed nor been forfeited with the loss of our sovereignty, just as the right of the Balkan nations to their lands has not lapsed with the loss of their sovereignty.” NorthernWinds❄️(talk) 09:21, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The reason is because your option A and B are not created properly. It is creating a divide where there is none in the literature. Many of the sources you added for B also say Zionists believed they had superior rights over natives. The overlap is both ways. This is because these authors do not see a contradiction between the two like you presented. There is no conflict between saying Zionists believed they had superior rights and justified this with historical claims. I said before scholars of colonialism in America also say this. The European settlers believed they had superior rights to the land and defended this with claims of superior morality and civilization. If someone creates two options for question of what it was based on; A "The perceived superiority of the European right to America over that of the natives" and B "The perceived moral and religious right to the land of the natives", it covers all literature on colonialism of the Americas because they say both. You pick all the sources to put in B and not A. This confuses the subject. For option B you must only put sources saying Zionists only made historical claims to the land but did not say they had superior right to it over natives. I do not think any source like this exists because the two come together. Your question is the problem. Ismeiri (talk) 09:27, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We should not categorize sources through the first option A and B but with the new versions of options. Most of the sources and I think all cited support what I proposed: "The Zionist claim to Palestine was based on the notion that the Jews' historical right to the land outweighed that of the Arabs, as justified by perceived historical and religious ties to it." Ismeiri (talk) 09:31, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Ismeiri Do you have a source directly supporting this (other than the first in sources for A)? Can you quote it?
There is no conflict between saying Zionists believed they had superior rights and justified this with historical claims. This is true. The issue is when you say that the Zionist claim to Palestine was based on this superiority.
For option B you must only put sources saying Zionists only made historical claims to the land but did not say they had superior right to it over natives Why?
Would you say that The Zionist claim to Palestine was based on perceived historical rights, which they argued is greater than the rights of the Arabs is the same as The Zionist claim to Palestine was based on that their rights to the land were greater than those of the Arabs, and argued that they have a historical right? You are basically turning the sentence upside down. I simply cannot see how these are identical. NorthernWinds❄️(talk) 09:47, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"Why?" - because it removes their belief they had superior rights to land that is in most if not all sources you put in B and now also in A. If every source says they believed they had a superior right to the land why should this be removed and only be discussed in the page body and not introduction.
"The Zionist claim to Palestine was based on that their rights to the land were greater than those of the Arabs, and argued that they have a historical right?"
This is not my proposal and it becomes confused because you put "based on" into the sentence and then limit the options for what it can be based on to one and then you choose "belief in historical claims" over "belief in superiority of rights" as if the two are mutually exclusive. The literature does not do this. In the literature they say it was based on both the belief in superiority of rights and how this superiority was justified with the historical and religious claims. You agreed there is no conflict between the two but then you only want to pick one and leave the other out and I do not understand why. In my proposal both are in it. Ismeiri (talk) 10:46, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Ismeiri That is very similar to your proposal. You said you support A.
I think that only one deserves to go in the lead because only on one of them did their claim hinge. The other is more relevant for discussing the Arab-Israeli conflict, but not as relevant for discussing Zionism. This is a page about Zionism and not about what Zionists thought of the Arabs. NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 19:50, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree and find that most of the prolific scholars of Zionism (Gan, Shimoni, also looking into Morris and Pappe), when they discuss how Zionists perceive the Jewish right to Palestine, always have something to say about how Zionists saw their claims as more legitimate than Arab claims. Indeed, the central aim of Zionism, according to RS, was to create and then preserve a Jewish (not an Arab or binational) state in Palestine.VR 21:48, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Vice regent Well, of course you're going to be discussing that when discussing the Jewish claim to Palestine in books with hundreds of pages... But in most of these RSes these statements are not next to each other, and for a good reason. And if they are, it is probably because the source focuses on Zionist-Arab relations (e.g. "Making Sense of the Nakba," "Against Self-Determination").
This fact is very notable for Zionist-Arab relations but not so much for Zionism in general. This is the sort of thing you put deep in your chapter about the Jewish claim to Palestine (directly hinting at Shimoni and Gans here) NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 22:05, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
RSes speak of different goals at different times... it is not true that RSes say that throughout its lifespan the movement aimed for a state NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 22:13, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've not studied this topic long, but most scholarly works on Zionism that I've read give a substantial proportion of their body to discussing how Zionists viewed Arabs/those already in Palestine. Can you recommend any 21st century (or late 20th century) book-length comprehensive works on Zionism that doesn't mention Arab (or Palestine's non-Jewish inhabitants) in a significant way? VR 17:29, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but the recent Routledge Handbook on Zionism has precisely 1 chapter on Zionism and Arabs (plus one on Zionism and Iraq). This is out of 35 chapters.
Clearly, there's a lot more to Zionism than its relations with Arabs NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 18:18, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I got a copy of Routledge Handbook on Zionism and found "Arab*" was mentioned on 183 out 574 pages (and a total of 202 pages mention either Arab* or Palestinian*), meaning ~1/3 of the book. What we need is WP:BALANCE: neither make the lead entirely about Zionism's relations with Arabs, nor try to remove all such material from the lead. I find the current lead to roughly strike that 1/3 to 2/3 balance (as derived from the very book you suggested above).VR 20:33, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Vice regent I counted 127 with "Arab" (excluding footnotes). Counting by every index entry which mentions "Arab" or "Palestinian", we get roughly 55 (with double counting).
You are assuming that if the page said "Arab" or "Palestinian" or had something related to them then the entire page was about them, which is not the case (these are huge pages)
With 557 pages (incl. the final chapter's footnotes), let's assume that every chapter has 2 footnotes/sources pages. That leaves us with 487 pages. Counting by the index, 11% of the pages concern themselves with Arab matters, and some of those only do so in a few sentences, rather than dedicating an entire page. From this, we understand, the lead is very unbalanced.
Adding this sentence you propose will only add to this unbalance. NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 21:05, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I redid the count and it turns out its 188 pages (out of 574). Sorry for the earlier error, though it still comes out to ~33% (or 1/3). I've listed all of them here. If you find any incorrect entries, let me know!
Finally, I'm not proposing "adding" this sentence. I want to maintain the status quo by tweaking an existing sentence slightly. The only sentence I wish to add is the one you proposed ("The Zionist claim to Palestine was based on the perceived Jewish historical right to Palestine dating back to biblical times"). I think the current sentence on the comparison of perceived rights adds significant value and the claim that it is UNDUE for the lead is incongruent with literature.VR 00:05, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I just looked at three more books:
As explained here, your method of finding these pages is unfortunately flawed and is not representative of the book's content itself. Unfortunately there is no escape from manually counting these pages.
Imo the best method to measure how much weight is given to this topic is to go by the index. NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 08:36, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As Ismeiri says above, the Zionist claim to Palestine drew its legitimacy in many ways: some discourse mentioned perceived historical claims (including biblical narratives) and other discourse focused on minimizing the legitimacy of Arab claims. There is no contradiction here. If the problem is the phrase "based on", then we can choose alternate wording (as is already the case in the 1st and 2nd options in #Options up to 7 May).VR (Please ping on reply) 15:59, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The sources provided by VR below clearly show that option A in the original RfC is supported by some reliable sources. I still think my option C is a good alternative, though VR's option 3 in the Options up to 7 May is acceptable as well. Katzrockso (talk) 01:53, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Additional sources

[edit]

Sources for option A

[edit]
  • 1. Assistant professor Lila Sharif: In 1896, Austro-Hungarian Jewish journalist and founder of Zionism Theodor Herzl wrote in Der Judenstaat (The Jewish State), considered one of the most important texts of modern Zionism, arguing that the creation of an independent Jewish state in historic Palestine would be the best way to avoid anti-Semitism in Europe. This Zionist claim to Palestine was premised on the belief that the Jewish people’s claim to historical right to the land outweighed that of the Arab Palestinians already living there.[10]
  • 2. Dr. (War Studies) Ahmad Samih Khalidi: Indeed, it is the heart of the Zionist claim to Palestine: Palestine belongs to the Jews and their right to the land is antecedent and superior to that of the Arabs. This is what Zionism is all about, and what justifies boththe Jewish return to the land and the dispossession of its Arab inhabitants.[11] (italic is source's)
  • 3. Ian Lustick, Making Sense of the Nakba: Ari Shavit, Baruch Marzel, and Zionist Claims to Territory, Journal of Palestine Studies: There are few types of arguments, or stories, for asserting a people’s right to a land that one group of Zionists or another has not, at one time or another, advanced to support Jewish to Palestine/the Land of Israel. Among the most familiar:...the Jews’ need to rule the land, or a large part of it, is greater than the need of the Palestinians, or the Arabs in general, andso takes precedence. (page 16)
  • 4. Jerome Slater (2020). Mythologies Without End: The US, Israel, and the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 1917-2020. Oxford University Press. p. 29-30.: According to the standard Zionist and then the Israeli narrative, for a number of reasons the land of Palestine rightfully belongs to the Jewish people—and no others, including today's Palestinians.
  • 5. Khalidi, Rashid (2006). The Iron Cage: The Story of the Palestinian Struggle for Statehood. Boston: Beacon Press. ISBN 978-0-8070-0309-1. : The Zionist claim to Palestine, which since even before the establishment of the state of Israel had depended in some measure on arguing that there was no legitimacy to the competing Arab claim
  • 6. Gideon Shimoni, The Zionist Ideology, Brandeis University Press and University Press of New England, 1995. (I didn't get the book, but I found its review in Foreign Affairs (magazine) by William B. Quandt): The author concludes with reflections on the importance of Zionism for Jewish secular identity and on the Zionist justification for the priority of a Jewish claim to the land of Palestine-Eretz Yisrael. In sum, Shimoni argues that most Zionists have adopted the utilitarian moral principle of following "the line of least injustice" in asserting that Jewish existential needs were greater than the Arabs '.
  • 7. Shlomo Sand, The Invention of the Land of Israel, 2014, "After that point [1922], in conjunction with the new “right under international law,” the conception of historical right emerged as the rhetorical cornerstone of Zionist propaganda...The fact that for thirteen hundred years the inhabitants of the region had been overwhelmingly Muslim was countered by maintaining that this local population did not possess the unique attributes of a nation and had never claimed self-determination. By contrast, according to Zionist discourse, the Jewish nation had always existed and, in every generation, had aspired to return to its country and realize its right." (couldn't find exact page number)
Zionism understood this as it took its first steps, seeking to mobilize the principle of right in order to fulfill its nationalist aims. From Moses Leib Lilienblum in 1882 to the Israeli Declaration of Independence in May 1948, Jewish nationalism mobilized a system of ethical and legal justifications based on a common denominator of historical right, or the right of precedent, or, in plain language, “we were there first, and now we’re back.”
  • 8. Sandra M. Sufian (2008). Healing the Land and the Nation: Malaria and the Zionist Project in Palestine, 1920-1947.; The Arabs’ presumed lack of attachment to the land based on their agricultural relationship to it was reiterated in Zionist notions of nationhood. The imagined bond between the Jewish people and the land of Israel, their colonial visions and agricultural goals, had significant implications for their ideas about the status of the Palestinian Arab population. The idea of rooting Jewish identity in Palestine and returning Jews to their ancient homeland revealed a Zionist view of Palestine as essentially and eternally Jewish. Palestinian Arabs, their national identities and histories, as well as their perceptions and use of land and swamps, were frequently overlooked or denied by Zionist conceptions of kibush ha'avoda (conquest of labor), kibush hakarka (conquest of land), and havra'at hakarka vehayishuv (healing the land and the nation), and Palestinian Arab claims to the land were devalued or dismissed. The Zionists believed that the indigenous Arab population did not possess the characteristics of a distinct, coherent nation. As such, they did not have national rights to the land. Disregarding the cultural, geographical, and social diversity within their own community, the Zionists perceived the Jews, in contrast, as one nation. Ben-Gurion expressed this view when he contrasted Jewish and Arab futures in the land according to their standing as a "nation". His evaluation ultimately obscured the national rights of the Palestinian Arab population by omitting their status in his considerations: “Palestine is destined for the Jewish nation and for the Arabs domiciled there.” Given the Zionist linking of the nation and the land, Palestinian Arabs could not have a true attachment to the land if they did not constitute a nation. The idea that the Palestinian Arab population, especially its peasant farmers, had no real attachment to the land drew upon colonial racial views of non-European, indigenous populations as primitive and backward...Dismissing Palestinian Arab guardianship and attachment to Palestine, as scholar Ted Swedenburg has pointed out, defined Palestinian Arab “culture as being eternally destructive of the land.” As Ben-Gurion proclaimed in 1924, “We do not recognize the right of Arabs to rule the country, since Palestine is still undeveloped and awaits its builders.” (pages 57-58)
  • 9. Chaim Gan, A Just Zionism: On the Morality of the Jewish State, Oxford University Press: First, Zionism could be regarded as having invoked the historical rights argument primarily in order to stress the primacy of the Land of Israel in the history of the Jews (henceforth, the formative territory claim). On the other hand, those who invoked it in most other cases referred mainly to the primacy of the nations they represented in the history of the territories they were claiming (henceforth, the first occupancy claim). (page 26)
The first argument concerns the identification of the right to national self-determination with a right to a nation-state. In the public discourse among Jewish Israelis, it is virtually presupposed that self-determination means the right to sovereignty or the hegemony of one ethnocultural group in a state of its own... [As an example, Gan cites Ruth Gavison:] "“A nation state — a state whose institutions and offi cial public culture are linked to a particular national group - offers special benefits to the people with whom the state is identified. At the same time, it puts those citizens who are not members of the preferred national community at a disadvantage.”" (page 55)
  • 10. Chaim Gan, Fathom interview. Most Israelis believe that the Land of Israel is the property of the Jews...Proprietary Zionism conceives of the entire Land of Israel as the property of the Jews...If the Jews are the owners of Palestine, then the Arab inhabitants of Palestine are the holders of stolen property, at least as a collective, and therefore shouldn’t be granted collective rights."
  • 11. Nur Masalha. (The following quote[12] is WP:SELFPUBLISHED, but Masalha has plenty of peer-reviewed publications and I need more time to review them to find a quote from them). "Zionist historiography provides ample evidence suggesting that from the very beginning of the Zionist Yishuv (settlement) in Palestine the attitude of the majority of the Zionist groups toward the native Arab population ranged from a mixture of indifference and patronizing superiority, to outright denial of their national rights, and uprooting and transferring them to neighbouring countries."
  • 10.Lorenzo Veracini (2006), Israel and Settler Society, Both Zionism and Afrikaner nationalism have insisted on indigenous absence, on a ‘land without a people’, or the emptiness of the South African frontier, arguing that the indigenous peoples had entered the geographic space identified by the colonizing project only at some late historical stage. (page 19)
Palestinian existence was practically denied, the history of Palestine prior to Zionist settlement and the Israeli–Arab conflict overlooked (page 68)
"Sharon's definition of the rights of Palestinian Israelis in relation to land — a notion that crucially accepts their presence in the State of Israel but also denies their entitlements — is ultimately very similar to Australian Prime Minister John Howard's notion of 'practical reconciliation' for Aboriginal communities: 'they have every right in the land, no rights to the land '." (page 81)
  • 13. Zachary Lockman. "Land, Labor and the Logic of Zionism: A Critical Engagement with Gershon Shafir". Settler Colonial Studies. Taylor and Francis., Early Labor Zionists often referred to themselves and their organisations as ‘Hebrew’ (‘ivri) rather than ‘Jewish’ (yehudi) to express their denigration and rejection of Diaspora Judaism and to instead identify themselves with the ancient Hebrews who had lived as a sovereign people in their own homeland – as modern Zionists aspired to do. This identification also helped these Jewish immigrants newly arrived from Europe envision themselves as having a deep historical connection to Palestine, thereby giving them a claim to possess it stronger than that of its indigenous Arab inhabitants.
  • 14. Zeev Sternhell (2009). The Founding Myths of Israel: Nationalism, Socialism, and the Making of the Jewish State. The Gospels, the New Testament, he [ Aaron David Gordon ] claimed, were also the work of the Jewish people: “It all came from us; it was created among us.” And now came the decisive argument: “And what did the Arabs produce in all the years they lived in the country? Such creations, or even the creation of the Bible alone, give us [Jewish people] a perpetual right over the land in which we were so creative, especially since the people that came after us did not create such works in this country, or did not create anything at all.” The founders accepted this point of view. This was the ultimate Zionist argument." (page 71-72)
  • 15. Joseph Massad (2018). "Against Self-Determination". Humanity Journal.. Some Zionist arguments (like those of the Revisionist leader Vladimir Jabotinsky) would grant the Palestinians jus soli in principle but insist that such a right was in conflict with the colonizing Jews’ superior, because historical and ancient, right to the land. Such arguments create a hierarchy of priorities of those in possession of jus soli through a right of conquest based on alleged origins and historical longevity, and on the basis that, as modern Europeans, colonizing Jews were developing the land, which lay fallow in the hands of the natives.
  • 16. Gabriel Piterberg, The Returns of Zionism: Myths, Politics and Scholarship in Israel: Zionist ideology defined this land as empty. This did not mean that Zionist leaders and settlers were ignorant of, or ignored, the presence of Arabs in Palestine....Jewish settlers were to be accorded exclusive privileges deriving from the Pentateuch, and Palestinian Arabs treated as part of the natural environment. The Zionist settlers were collective subjects who acted, and the native Palestinians became objects acted upon. (page 94-95)
"Zionism constructed its own story as a unique and impregnable one, in the process excluding the voices of an indigenous people—the Palestinian Arabs."[13]
  • 17. Tom Segev, A State at any Cost- The Life of David Ben Gurion, Picador, 2020, page 75: "He [ David Ben Gurion believed that the land of Israel belonged to the Jews and that they deserved to receive it despite the fact that it was populated by Arabs"

Sources for option B

[edit]
  1. Prof. Mohammad Shahid Alam: The Zionist claim to Palestine is based on 'a historical connection': the presence of Jews (more accurately, Hebrews) in ancient Palestine most of whom left after the second destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in 70 CE.[12]
  2. Prof. Walid Khalidi: We’re talking about what the basis of the Zionist claim to Palestine is. There are four bases. One is the divine argument. One is the argument from positive law, in other words, the League of Nations, the Balfour Declaration. One is the argument from natural law, that is, the need. One is the argument from historical connection.[13]
  3. Prof. Anita Shapira: Zionists regarded the denial of an Arab exclusive right to Palestine as a matter of negligible importance.[14]
  4. Dr. Jerome Slater: ...In Palestinian eyes, this history far outweighs the Jewish claim to Palestine, which is ultimately based on the biblical account in which God promised the land of Palestine to the Jews, who subsequently conquered, inhabited, and ruled that land until they in turn were conquered and expelled by the Roman Empire two thousand years ago[15]
  5. Prof. Zeev Sternhell: ...All this is liable to arouse understandable fears among those who are unshakably attached to the total and unquestioning worldview of the founders and who wish to base Zionism on the eternal historical right of the Jewish people to Eretz Israel.[16]
  6. Prof. Chaim Gans: The Zionist movement aspired to realize Jews’ interests in adhering to their culture and in realizing their right to self-determination in the Land of Israel rather than in places where the Jews were currently residing, or in any other territory without a special significance in the history of the Jewish people.3 This aspiration was based on what has often been called the historical right of the Jews to the Land of Israel.[17]
  7. Prof. Tamar Meisels: The justification of Jewish settlement rests on historical arguments[18]
  8. Prof. Roger Frieland & Prof. Richard D. Hecht: religions anchored in these sacred centers have been essential to the formation of modern nationalist movements and the modern nations hold these sites sacred as nationalist - not just religious - centers. Jerusalem is, of course, the sovereign capital of Israel, and the Zionist claim to Palestine is rooted here. After the Romans destroyed Jerusalem in 70 CE, the Jews adapted to their exile by holding tightly to their map of history, to the repeated and promised cycle of exile and redemption. The Jews survived as a people, Eli Wiesel is fond of saying, because they remembered. As Saul Friedlander and Adam Seligman have recently shown, the Israelis placed the Shoah, the Nazi destruction of European Jewry, into this classic narrative form, the singular evilness of exile followed by national redemption. This sequence could be read both as a "secular" statement of historical cause and reason for nationhood, and as a "religious" statement of God's direction of history.[19]
  9. Prof. Yosef Gorny: One cannot attempt to answer these questions without clarifying some of the Zionist tenets which determined the nature of the Arab-Jewish problem. Zionism has always adhered to four social and political tenets, without which its existence would have been pointless and its efforts doomed to failure. All these principles had a powerful influence, direct or indirect, on its policy towards the Arabs. The first principle was the desire for the territorial concentration of the Jewish people in Palestine, their historic homeland, Eretz Yisrael-The Land of Israel. This claim for a homeland, in the name of an historical right by a people not residing within it, implied, a priori, a denial, whether moderate or extreme, of the exclusive rights of the Arab residents.[20] (key word: implied; not "was based on" nor anything of the sort. This was a consequence); "It should be recalled that with the exception of several tens of thousands, the Jewish people were not residing in their country. Hence, recognition of their historical right to the country constituted the internal and outward justification for their return to the country."[21]
  10. Prof. Moshe Maoz: Both movements have claimed full legitimate rights over the entire land: Eretz Israel or Falastin. The Zionists, by recounting historical rights and divine promises derived from the Bible, and the Palestinians, by citing historical continuity and religious bonds, as well as their demographic majority cum the right of self-determination.[22]
  11. Assoc. Prof. Aaron Berman: He then went on to challenge the very basis of the Jewish claim to Palestine, claiming: ["]Palestine does not belong to the Jews. It does not belong to them on historical grounds. They had full possession of it for less than five hundred years. The Arabs have had it for thirteen hundred years. The Jews were not driven out of Palestine by the destruction of Jerusalem under Titus. Their dispersion for several hundred years had been a voluntary diaspora.["].[23]
  12. Prof. Ronald Allen Goldberg: The Jewish claim to Palestine dates back to biblical times, when the Jews ruled their own nation. Dispersed by the Romans, they became a minority in the area. Many years later, following the rise of Islam, the Arabs began to populate the area and eventually became the majority. A small Jewish population remained in the area, augmented greatly in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. After the horrors of World War II, the Jewish community pressured for the revival of a Jewish state in their ancient homeland.[24]
  13. Prof. (Political Science) Tareq Y. Ismael & Prof. (Social Work) Jacqueline S. Ismael: the Zionist claim to Palestine was based on the idea of Jews “returning” to the “Land of Israel”[25]
  14. Prof. William Woodruff: The Jews based their claim to Palestine on the historical and religious associations of their people with the area; in returning to Palestine they were returning to their spiritual home.[26]
  15. Dr. Norman Finkelstein: The Zionist claim to Palestine rests on one or a combination of the following arguments: (1) divine right, (2) historical right, (3) compelling need.[27]
  16. Prof. (law) John B. Quigley: No claim asserted, with the exception of the Zionist claim to Palestine, based so ancient[28]
  17. Prof. (Islamic history) Gudrun Krämer: The Jewish claim to Palestine as the "Land of Israel" (Eretz Israel) bases itself on the biblical narratives and asserts the unbroken presence of the Jewish people in this land and their bond to it[29]
  18. Dr. James L. Gelvin: For Zionists, the Jewish claim to Palestine comes from their ancient habitation in Palestine[30]
  19. Dr. Catherine Rudnicki: In that time, archaeology was extremely political, as determining whether an artifact was Jewish or not was to some extent ruling on the scope to which the Jewish claim to Palestine was historically grounded[31]
  20. Dr. Ilham Shahbari: Despite the Jewish claim to Palestine based on biblical ideology, only 7%-8% of the land was actually owned by Jews prior to the establishment of Israel.[32]

Quotes

[edit]
Jewish historical rights to Palestine
[edit]
  • Ber Borochov: ...On the other hand, the Palestinians [Zionists of Zion[a]] accuse them [[[Jewish Territorial Organization|Territorialists]]] of philanthropic-sentimental mannerisms and anti-national tendencies, because they [the Zionists of Zion] consider the Land of Israel to be an inseparable part of the Jewish national ideal; for proof, the Palestinians (Zionists of Zion) typically bring up the past of the People of Israel, various expressions of the people's longing for the Land of Israel in literature, in the people's experiences, and in messianic movements, and they also rely on the history of the Zionist movement itself.[33]
  • Menachem Ussishkin: The only, serious and real hope, a hope that is based on full historical rights - remains only in the Land of Israel.[34]
  • David Ben-Gurion: Our right to aliyah is not only the right of those individuals who immigrate to the land, but the right of the entire Jewish people... Our right to aliyah is not only the fruit of the legal act which was confirmed at a known moment by international law - it precedes this act, and it stems from the historical connection of the Jewish people with this land.[35]
  • Max Nordau: If it became apparent that it was impossible to come to an agreement with His Majesty the Sultan, if his unbending will shut us out of Palestine, then, still solemnly asserting our undying historical claims to the land of our fathers, firmly and resolutely adhering to the Basle programme, we should have to be patient and wait.[36]
  • Itzhak Ben-Zvi: In your entire speech, which was aimed solely at the Arab residents of our country, there was no explicit mention of the historical national right of the Jewish people to their land, which is the basis and foundation of all our aspirations and all our claims to the Land of Israel; it is what makes the Hebrew people a political entity in the world and an official partner in the building of this country.[37]
  • Chaim Weizmann: The Mandate has not yet been published, but I am able to give you its main clauses: 1. The Mandate recognises the justice of the Jews’ historical claim to Palestine, and this is the foundation of our structure[38]; "I have already spoken many times about our relations with the Arabs: our plans are not directed against the Arabs, but the opposite. We want the new development of the country to be of great benefit to them. But we come back and say on behalf of millions of Jews, that we have a historical right to Israel and permission to continue the life that was interrupted by cruel acts. And we will return this life to Israel not with weapons but with vigor, diligence and honest work - this will be understood by all nations."[39]
  • Moshe Leib Lilienblum: Therefore, we must strive for the settlement of the Land of Israel by workers of the soil from the children of Israel and settle our brothers on it in such a way that for a hundred years our brothers will be able to leave almost completely the Europe that is revolting against them, and settle in the land of our ancestors adjacent to it, to which we have a historical right, which did not end and was not lost with the loss of our rule, just as the right of the Balkan peoples to their land did not end with the loss of their rule.[40]
  • Moses Gaster: We desire to emphasize once more our moral and historical claim to that country, and to show by careful and unbiased investigation that whatever may have been advanced against our aims, from whatever quarter and with whatever arguments, be they historical, geographical, political, or economical, has no foundation in fact.[41]
  • Nahum Sokolow: Never has a nation governed its own home for a longer period; no nation’s history, religion, literature, and traditions are more closely bound up with its land; and no nation has ever suffered a more terrible martyrdom after having been disinherited. Can anyone doubt the right of the Jewish people to the land of Israel? The validity of the Jewish title to Palestine rests on the same basis as the title of any nation to any particular area of the world where it has ruled and existed for centuries. The Jews’ historical right on the Land of Israel, with due consideration for the rights and interests of the non-Jewish population which will be safe-guarded and respected, must become the decisive factor in the question of Palestine.[42]
  • Jehiel Tschlenow (shame that he doesn't have an article): ...The historical rights of the Jewish people to their historical homeland; the organic connection existing between them and their land... the sole remaining ability for them to live natural lives once again—that is, to solve only in this land the Jewish problem....Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).
Superiority of Jewish claims over Arab claims
[edit]
  • Vladimir Jabotinsky: [I]t is quite understandable that the Arabs of Palestine would also prefer Palestine to be the Arab State No. 4, No. 5, or No. 6—that I quite understand. But when the Arab claim is confronted with our Jewish demand to be saved, it is like the claims of appetite versus the claims of starvation.[14]
  • A. D. Gordon: At this point, one must comment on a claim that appears to be just, which is argued with an air of religious sincerity even among our own ranks. It is said that we, by coming to settle here, are robbing the Arabs, who are effectively the masters of the land, having conquered it (though not from us). But what does it mean to be 'masters of the land'? If we consider the 'master of the land' to be the people who hold political sovereignty, then the Arabs have not been the masters of the land for a long time; for previously the land was in the hands of the Turks, and now—in the hands of the English. It follows that, aside from the right of residency and labor, the Arabs also possess nothing more than a historical right to the land, just as we do—except that our historical right is, without a doubt, greater. Thus, it follows that we are not taking the land from their hands either. And as for the right of residency—the fact that they dwell in the land and work it—behold, we too dwell in the land and work it. The difference between us and the Arabs in this sense is therefore a quantitative difference and not a qualitative one; it is not a difference in the fundamental validity of this right[43]
  • David Ben-Gurion: "a partial Jewish state is not the end but the beginning...Our right to Palestine, all of it, is unassailable and eternal...I will not concede a single inch of our soil."[15]; "We do not recognize the right of Arabs to rule the country, since Palestine is still undeveloped and awaits its builders." (Sufian 2008)
  • Menachem Ussishkin: Therefore, the cultural, historical, and human rights of the Jewish people toward the Land of Israel are not to be compared to the rights of the Arabs. This does not mean that the million Arabs living in the land must leave it. There is no Jew and no Zionist who would think so. I am speaking of our right to this land as a state. The Arabs who have lived here for generations have a full right to remain on their land and to live here as loyal citizens of the state that will be created, with full political, economic, and cultural rights. There is no doubt that their situation will be far better than that of their brothers in the Arab countries[44]
  • Moshe Shertok: "We have forgotten that we have not come to an empty land to inherit it, but we have come to conquer a country from the people inhabiting it … if we cease to look upon our land, the Land of Israel, as ours alone and we allow a partner into our estate, all content and meaning will be lost to our enterprise"[16]
  • Israel Zangwill: "If Lord Shaftesbury was literally inexact in describing Palestine as a country without a people, he was essentially correct, for there is no Arab people living in intimate fusion with the country, utilising its resources and stamping it with a characteristic impress; there is at best an Arab encampment."[17]
  • Ariel Sharon: "they [ Palestinian Israelis ] have every right in the land, no rights to the land". (Veracini 2006)
  • Ari Shavit: "If Zionism was to be, Lydda could not be. If Lydda was to be, Zionism could not be." [ Ian Lustick explains that "Lydda,” (Palestinian expulsion from Lydda and Ramle) is being used as "a metonym for the fate of Arab Palestine and its inhabitants"[18]).


Notes

  1. ^ This refers to the Zionists opposing the Uganda scheme

References

  1. ^ Chomsky, Noam (2010). The Chomsky Reader. James Peck. Westminster: Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. ISBN 978-0-307-77249-7.
  2. ^ Gorni, Yosef (March 1980). "Attitudes to Arab‐Jewish confrontation as reflected in the Hebrew press: 1900–1918". Studies in Zionism. 1 (1): 47–81. doi:10.1080/13531048008575781. ISSN 0334-1771.
  3. ^ Yosef Gorny, Zionism and the Arabs 1882-1948: a study of ideology, p. 1
  4. ^ Shapira, Anita (2012). Israel: a history. The Schusterman series in Israel studies. Waltham, Mass: Brandeis University Press. p. 15. ISBN 978-1-61168-352-3.
  5. ^ Shapira, Anita (1999). Land and power: the zionist resort to force, 1881-1948. Stanford studies in Jewish history and culture. Stanford (Calif.): Stanford University Press. p. 138. ISBN 978-0-8047-3776-0.
  6. ^ Slater, Jerome (2001-06-01). "What Went Wrong? The Collapse of the Israeli-Palestinian Peace Process". Political Science Quarterly. 116 (2): 171–199. doi:10.2307/798058. ISSN 0032-3195.
  7. ^ Quoted in Hertzberg, Arthur (1988-10-13). "The Turning Point?". The New York Review of Books. Vol. 35, no. 15. ISSN 0028-7504. Retrieved 2026-04-15.
  8. ^ Alam, M. Shahid (Mohammad Shahid) (2006). Challenging the new orientalism : dissenting essays on the "war against Islam". Internet Archive. North Haledon, NJ : Islamic Publications International. p. 104. ISBN 978-1-889999-45-6.
  9. ^ Sternhell, Zeev (1998). The founding myths of Israel: nationalism, socialism, and the making of the Jewish state. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press. pp. xii. ISBN 978-0-691-01694-8.
  10. ^ Sharif, Lila (2025). "Nakba". The Sage Encyclopedia of Refugee Studies. doi:10.4135/9781071919422.n130.
  11. ^ Khalidi, Ahmad Samih (2011-07-01). "Why Can't the Palestinians Recognize the Jewish state?". Journal of Palestine Studies. 40 (4): 78–81. doi:10.1525/jps.2011.XL.4.78. ISSN 0377-919X.
  12. ^ Alam, M. Shahid (Mohammad Shahid) (2006). Challenging the new orientalism : dissenting essays on the "war against Islam". Internet Archive. North Haledon, NJ : Islamic Publications International. p. 104. ISBN 978-1-889999-45-6.
  13. ^ Quoted in Hertzberg, Arthur (1988-10-13). "The Turning Point?". The New York Review of Books. Vol. 35, no. 15. ISSN 0028-7504. Retrieved 2026-04-15.
  14. ^ Shapira, Land and Power
  15. ^ Slater, Jerome (2001-06-01). "What Went Wrong? The Collapse of the Israeli-Palestinian Peace Process". Political Science Quarterly. 116 (2): 171–199. doi:10.2307/798058. ISSN 0032-3195.
  16. ^ Sternhell, Zeev (1998). The founding myths of Israel: nationalism, socialism, and the making of the Jewish state. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press. pp. xii. ISBN 978-0-691-01694-8.
  17. ^ Gans, A Just Zionism
  18. ^ Meisels, Tamar (2015-07-03). "Settlement in Samaria: the ethical dimension". Israel Affairs. 21 (3): 313–330. doi:10.1080/13537121.2015.1036559. ISSN 1353-7121.
  19. ^ Friedland, Roger; Hecht, Richard D. (December 1998). "Changing places: Jerusalem's Holy places in comparative perspective". Israel Affairs. 5 (2–3): 200–225. doi:10.1080/13537129908719519. ISSN 1353-7121.
  20. ^ Gorni, Yosef (March 1980). "Attitudes to Arab‐Jewish confrontation as reflected in the Hebrew press: 1900–1918". Studies in Zionism. 1 (1): 47–81. doi:10.1080/13531048008575781. ISSN 0334-1771.
  21. ^ Yosef Gorny, Zionism and the Arabs 1882-1948: a study of ideology, p. 1
  22. ^ Maoz, moshe (2013). "The Zionist/Jewish and Palestinian/Arab National Movements: The Question of Legitimacy—A Comparative Observation". Israel Studies. 18 (2): 30. doi:10.2979/israelstudies.18.2.30.
  23. ^ Berman, Aaron (2018). Nazism, The Jews and American Zionism, 1933-1948. Erscheinungsort nicht ermittelbar: Wayne State University Press. ISBN 978-0-8143-4403-3.
  24. ^ Goldberg, Ronald Allen (2012). America in the forties. America in the twentieth century. New York: Syracuse Univ. Press. ISBN 978-0-8156-3292-4.
  25. ^ Prof. (Political Science) Tareq Y. Ismael & Prof. (Social Work) Jacqueline S. Ismael, Government and Politics of the Contemporary Middle East, p. 288.
  26. ^ Woodruff, William (2002), "Asia in the Interwar Years", A Concise History of the Modern World, London: Palgrave Macmillan UK, pp. 183–202, doi:10.1057/9780230554665_13, ISBN 978-0-333-97163-5, retrieved 2026-05-04{{citation}}: CS1 maint: work parameter with ISBN (link)
  27. ^ Finklestein, Norman G. (1993). Shapir, Anita (ed.). "Shattering a Zionist Myth: "Defensive Ethos or Mission of Conquest"". Arab Studies Quarterly. 15 (3): 111–126. ISSN 0271-3519.
  28. ^ Quigley, John (1988). "The Palestinian Question in International Law: A Historical Perspective". Arab Studies Quarterly. 10 (1): 44–58. ISSN 0271-3519.
  29. ^ Krämer, Gudrun (2008). A history of Palestine: from the Ottoman conquest to the founding of the state of Israel. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-11897-0.
  30. ^ Gelvin, James L. (2021-03-11). The Israel-Palestine Conflict: A History. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-108-80485-1.
  31. ^ https://www.proquest.com/openview/3f70e558c49dd826bb1a4f251d1d3a14/1?cbl=18750&diss=y
  32. ^ https://bradscholars.brad.ac.uk/server/api/core/bitstreams/a92b6ba6-c63d-4750-8a1e-c75dbbec096b/content
  33. ^ כתבי בורוכוב א', עמוד 19, ב"לשאלת ציון וטאריטוריה". "ולעומת זאת מאשימים אותם הפלשתינאים בגינוני-סנטימנטליות פילאנטרופיים ובמגמות אנטי-לאומיות, לפי שהם (ציוני-ציון) חושבים את ארץ-ישראל לחלק בלתי-נפרד מן האידיאל היהודי הלאומי; לשם הוכחה מעלים הפלשתינאים, כרגיל, את עברו של עם ישראל, גילויים שונים של געגועי-העם לארץ-ישראל בספרות, בחוויותיו של העם ובתנועות המשיחיות, וכן הם מסתמכים על תולדות התנועה הציונית גופא."‎
  34. ^ דברים אחרונים‎
  35. ^ Speech reproduced in דבר‎
  36. ^ Address to sixth Zionist congress, translated by The Jewish Chronicle
  37. ^ 1921 letter to Herbert Samuel. The original is probably in English but I have a Hebrew translation in כתבי יצחק בן-צבי, כרך א, עמוד 183‎
  38. ^ 1921 Address to Jerusalem Va'ad Ha'ir. Letters and Papers series B, vol. 1, paper 60, "A reply to Critics" p. 300.
  39. ^ 1920 London speech (translated from English to Hebrew then by AI/me to English). Available at PBY 35029
  40. ^ On the revival of Israel on the land of its forefathers
  41. ^ Gaster, "Palestine From The Destruction of The Temple to 1880" in The Maccabaean⁩, 1 April 1906⁩
  42. ^ History of Zionism vol. 2
  43. ^ "Our work from now on"
  44. ^ Last things

RfC overload

[edit]

Immediately after the "as few Arabs as possible" RfC was closed, another one was opened. Could we maybe possibly refrain from holding new RfCs for a little while and try to improve the article via ordinary editing instead of trying to resolve all the highly contentious wording disputes at once? SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 19:07, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This RfC has been waiting for two weeks بادهای شمال ❄️ (talk) 19:13, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know that. My bad. Still, I think taking a short break from contentious RfCs will help improve the editing environment here. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 19:19, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Both these RfCs ultimately resulted from a few edits I made within a short period of time after recognizing erroneous statements in the article. I have no idea why these are controversial and I have more I intend on removing/changing but stopped making any edits until these two are sorted.
It appears that I am an RfC generator بادهای شمال ❄️ (talk) 19:21, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That, and the consensus required provision on this page allows for one editor to revert saying "start an RfC" and the edit cannot be restored until an RfC (or a discussion essentially equivalent in scale to an RfC) has concluded. I know this restriction is in place because of WP:MUEWs (multi-user edit wars), but it definitely rewards stonewalling. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 20:49, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
RfCs require you (as the proposer of a change) to provide ample evidence and intensive research. The sources for these RfCs did not come out of nowhere (esp. the quotes it took me a long time to find and verify); it is exhausting and not everyone can do it, making it even more of an issue.
If you believe anyone is stonewalling you should take it to AE بادهای شمال ❄️ (talk) 21:21, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe anyone is stonewalling you should take it to AE I'd rather not have to do that. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 21:25, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Same with all of us xD I'd rather spend my time doing interesting research than researching someone's past violations. بادهای شمال ❄️ (talk) 21:37, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I definitely appreciate the amount of work you've put in to making these RfCs and especially the source analyses, they've been quite helpful :) SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 21:26, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks and you're welcome! It's all interesting research but with the Hebrew quotes I am spoiling some good to myself since I actually plan to read all these works in full! I plan to start next month so it'd be really convenient if these RfCs waited for me to finish... Oh well. بادهای شمال ❄️ (talk) 21:46, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I 100% agree with this. It gets very tiring to open this page only for there to be 100 new comments since 3 days before. Katzrockso (talk) 22:26, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Who is to blame for this? Northern Winds? No. Everyone who baselessly reverted edits on this page. The article sucks and it is impossible to edit it. The only recourse is RFCs. Rather than complaining about RFCs, maybe it would be more productive to be less unyielding about editing. Slava570 (talk) 03:57, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's been far too much feuding between personalities on this page and comments like the above only needlessly raise the temperature. I'd suggest it would be a good course of action to strike it and for everybody to WP:FOC. There's a lot of RfCs because this is a heated topic due to its involvement in the ideological ground of at least two interrelated and ongoing armed conflicts and the arbitration system has made it clear that, in these heated circumstances, formalized discussions with strict rules are preferable. Ideally, with their word limits, RfCs should reduce the number of comments rather than expanding them. As someone for whom PIA topics are a secondary interest I do share the frustrations of those who find this specific page exhausting. That's why I often say what I think needs saying and then go and find other pages to edit. I would suggest that a lot of page regulars would be wise to follow this example and look up from PIA to find something else to edit once in a while. I am saying this in a very general sense and, if you don't think this applies to you personally, it probably doesn't. Simonm223 (talk) 12:10, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Asking people to be more willing to compromise is perfectly legitimate. The lack of compromise is the cause of the frustration here. Slava570 (talk) 12:29, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I am suggesting that blame-seeking is non-productive and claiming that reverts were baseless is poor form. Especially on a page where editors have to be very careful with their reverts, such as this one, most reverts have a basis even if it is one an editor personally disagrees with. Nobody is out here making articles unstable for fun. RfCs are a method of finding consensus and a method that, IMO are more appropriate than individual compromises. Simonm223 (talk) 13:50, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Asking people to be more willing to compromise is perfectly legitimate—Not always. Not, for example, when those with legitimate positions are asked to compromise with illegitimate demands in order to introduce or support a POV from editors that is unmoored from WP:BESTSOURCES. إيان (talk) 21:38, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Of course Northern Winds can't be blamed. They are a pleasant breeze; a hushed sister to the heat; a silvered peace. بادهای شمال ❄️ (talk) 12:56, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm tired boss. ⹃Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 06:31, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The editors yearn for the RfCs. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 12:10, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SuperPianoMan9167 can you clarify what you mean by "holding new RfCs for a little while and try to improve the article via ordinary editing". Users clearly have content disputes on this page and the normative way to resolve those is via RfCs. Wouldn't resolving disputes by "ordinary editing" simply involve reverting each other? For example, how would you have resolved #RFC: Zionists saying Zionism is Colonialism via "ordinary editing"? VR 16:52, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Vice regent: You appear to have left out an important part of my comment; my original comment included the crucial words refrain from. As in, I mean we should take a break from resolving these kinds of disputes via RfC and make improvements to the article (e.g. finding page numbers, or basic copyediting, or fixing templates) that don't involve long, tedious exchanges about the exact phrasing of wikivoice statements. In other words, my point is that we would move on from the colonialism thing and other similar wording disputes and work on other, less contentious parts of the article. For example, there are several {{citation needed}}s that could be sourced. Trying to hold contentious RfC after contentious RfC leads to community burnout. You heard everyone above: the community is tired of holding RfCs.
    And to answer your other question: now that the consensus required provision has been replaced with enforced BRD, the way to resolve editing disputes is to edit the article normally, not reverting any contested change and forcing it to go through an RfC.
    • Before: Editor A makes a change. Editor B reverts everything Editor A did. Editor A opens a talk page discussion. After a while, Editor A gives up on trying to improve the article as Editor B either never responds to them or stonewalls the discussion.
    • After: Editor A makes a change. Editor B reverts everything Editor A did. Editor A opens a talk page discussion. Editor B is likewise unresponsive or stonewalls the discussion, but now, editor A can restore their change after 24 hours from the posting of their talk page discussion, allowing the article to move forward and not get bogged down in endless RfCs.
    To be clear: This is not a license to edit war. It's just an observation that status quo stonewalling is now much less effective. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 17:42, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    "editor A can restore their change after 24 hours...allowing the article to move forward and not get bogged down in endless RfCs" I'm quite troubled by this statement. It sounds like you're saying the way to resolve disputes is by reverting, not by holding RfCs. AFAIK, the only route to consensus is through an RfC closure, not who can patiently revert the most.VR 20:41, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe the admins asilvering, ScottishFinnishRadish, Ealdgyth can weigh in on how this:
    • Editor A makes a change. Editor B reverts Editor A's edit. Editor A opens a talk page discussion. Editor B disputes them. Other editors might join the discussion, but no consensus emerges.
      • Should editor A wait 24 hours and revert back to their change? That will just lead to a slow motion edit war.
      • Should the editors refrain from reverting and start an RfC and only the RfC decides what the article content should be? That's effectively the WP:CR option that we just got rid of.
      • Some other third option.
    VR 20:49, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Vice regent, SuperPianoMan has the right of it here. The aim is to edit normally, to the extent possible. I can't comment on Editor A makes a change. Editor B reverts Editor A's edit. Editor A opens a talk page discussion. Editor B disputes them. Other editors might join the discussion, but no consensus emerges. in the way you would like, because this is not a scenario that fully reflects how normal editing works. "No consensus emerges" can mean so many different kinds of problem. For example, if Editor A and Editor B continue to revert each other every 24 hours, but no other editors are sufficiently interested in the issue to get involved themselves, we've clearly identified a problem, and it is that Editors A and B are edit-warring. Depending on the circumstances, I'd hazard a guess that one or both of them, in that case, ought to be tbanned. -- asilvering (talk) 21:17, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Affirmative consensus is also a higher bar than rough consensus, and enforced BRD allows for attempting compromise edits that hopefully address the concerns that caused the revert. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:44, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @ScottishFinnishRadish What's the difference NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 22:05, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Say we're at a meeting that's running late and we're ordering dinner. A few people want pepperoni pizza, a few people want plain pizza, one person wants Hawaiian pizza, and several people want fried chicken. As a rough consensus we order a couple pizzas. Affirmative consensus is a higher bar, the exact pizzas to order, doing everything necessary to placate the chicken people. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:51, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    It sounds like you're saying the way to resolve disputes is by reverting, not by holding RfCs. You don't have to revert to solve a dispute. You could just edit the article normally and make a change to someone else's change. You shouldn't jump to reverting when you dispute content anyway, and it's a good idea to avoid reverting in general. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 22:50, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Starting discussion for a new RFC (standing in line)

[edit]

I think we need to change the rules for this page. The rules are not working. The rules are unfair. The rules favor the status quo so heavily that it's nearly impossible to make any changes. The previous RFC ended with the closer saying there is a major problem with the article, but no remedy is possible. That speaks to a problem with the rules.

I propose new rules in which if a sentence is highly disputed (not sure how that's defined yet) then the onus is on all sides to justify its existence in the article. If consensus cannot be reached, the sentence should be deleted until a compromise can be reached.

A rule such as this would force the group to compromise. Thoughts? Slava570 (talk) 13:43, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

there are multiple discussions about that. see here Wikipedia:Verifiability/Onus. Relevant discussions are specifically regarding whether WP:ONUS and WP:NOCON disagrees. I'm not in favor of specific rules for a single page unless if arbcom says so. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) — Preceding undated comment added 13:54, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I thought there were already specific rules for this page... If so, can't they be adjusted if they're not working? I'll look into those links later, thanks. Slava570 (talk) 16:21, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus required restriction was imposed by an uninvolved administrator. It can only be repealed by an administrator, or possibly a discussion at WP:AE. I'm not sure if modifications can be made to the rule, since from what I recall, the restrictions administrators can impose are authorized by ArbCom decisions. Katzrockso (talk) 16:27, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's always Arbcom. That would be PIA6 (the 6th Palestine Israel Arbcom Symposium). MarkBernstein (talk) 02:09, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Compromise is not a goal on Wikipedia. Wikipedia favors achieving weighted consensus, particularly with respect to what reliable sources say. There is no compromise between unreliable sources and reliable sources, no compromise between falsehood and truth. Katzrockso (talk) 16:17, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What happens if the weighted consensus is wrong? What happens if large numbers of editors think so? Then it's wrong in perpetuity according to this system. At a certain point, editors should at least be required to prove their case again, even if they think it has been proven before. The previous RFC found a disconnect between reliable sources and the article, so it is the status quo that is compromising on falsehood/truth.
We can also compromise through adding attribution. Slava570 (talk) 16:27, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If you think the weighted consensus was evaluated wrong, challenge the closer at first the closer's talk page, and then failing that a Wikipedia:Closure review at WP:AN. If you personally disagree with the weighted consensus, then there isn't much to do other than hope for consensus to change.
Some essays that might help are Wikipedia:Editors will sometimes be wrong and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not about winning. Katzrockso (talk) 16:32, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We're dealing with many sentences, each with a different consensus. I think there are numerous things in this article that are wrong, and I'm not alone in that. I don't know if it was because something was evaluated wrong or some other reason. All I know is that numerous editors think there are severe problems with the article and yet are unable to change it.
I'm not here to win. I don't care about that. Compromise may not be an end, but it is a means to an end. I still don't understand why we cannot just add more attribution? I also do not understand why you should not have to add a wider range of sources if you've been challenged by so many editors? And why can't we add any of the numerous sources that contradict what's in the article? What reason do you have to be against that? Slava570 (talk) 16:51, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The strict rules on this page are because it is one of the most contentious pages on Wikipedia and anything less leads to disruption and instability, neither of which are desirable outcomes. Honestly, the scope of change you are describing would absolutely require admin involvement and might, ultimately, require amendments to the arbitration remedies in place for this page. I understand you are quite new to the topic area but please understand, however bad you think the tenor of this page is now, it was far worse in the past and the disputes that have occurred on this page have lost Wikipedia many editors. Considering that Wikipedia lacks for editors that's not great. I am generally not shy about contentious topics; my main interests are philosophy and political extremism and that leads into a lot of hot-button pages and, even so, I take long breaks from the PIA CTOP regularly simply because of how stressful this editing is. I can definitely see your frustration but this is kind of how the sausage factory works in the most-difficult pages in Wikipedia. Simonm223 (talk) 16:58, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The implementing admin for the "consensus required" restriction has waived interest so any uninvolved admin could lift the restriction. fiveby(zero) 00:33, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
A consensus of administrators at WP:AE has resulted in the consensus required restriction being replaced with enforced BRD. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 17:46, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Compromise is 100% the goal! WP:NEGOTIATE; consensus should be as wide as possible. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 21:26, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As stated above, this assumption is incorrect. The only 'compromise' endorsed by WP policy is the reconciliation of differing views in the highest quality sources according to WP:DUE WEIGHT in order to improve WP:NPOV. WP policy does not support any compromise among editors' personal POVs. إيان (talk) 21:44, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think 'compromise' doesn't mean we bring our personal POVs and hammer out an agreed summary of Zionism to publish here, it means that when some editors perceive a problem with the text and others don't, we all work to find a text that's mutually agreeable - not agreeable to our personal POVs, but to our different understandings of the sources, and where relevant of the policies at play. RfCs explicitly don't do this, they're a mechanism for moving on from a discussion, even at the cost of ignoring some people. If we don't negotiate, we end up with situations like we have now - a disputed tag on an extremely important article, because we have:
  • no consensus that our current text is accurate
  • no consensus on what to do with it
  • no mechanism for changing it, even by deletion of disputed elements, without an affirmative consensus to do so.
That's why I supported this compromise even though I thought it violated my sense of what WP:DUE would dictate. Basically, yes we should compromise. Samuelshraga (talk) 20:11, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The close of Talk:Zionism/Archive 40 § RfC: Moving "as few Arabs" does not say that "no remedy is possible". The remedy is continued collaborative research and editing to improve the identified problems, just not starting with the lede. -- Beland (talk) 18:00, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully that process will be propitious. Sorry if I went too far in my interpretation of the close. Slava570 (talk) 18:50, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Beland So am I correct that it just removes the restriction of requiring an RfC to make changes to the lede and body, and basically that while there was no consensus for a particular change, there was consensus that there are serious accuracy concerns? VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 19:03, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"Consensus that there are serious accuracy concerns" is a weird phrase. I would say there is a serious, unresolved, and legitimate accuracy dispute that should be resolved by editing the body first (and conflicting articles, if necessary). If that happens, I think it will be fairly obvious and uncontroversial what changes, if any, are appropriate to make to the lede. If there is general agreement about that, the closed RFC should not be read as preventing it just on procedural grounds. Someone may choose to call an RFC if not, or regardless, and that's also OK. -- Beland (talk) 22:34, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Short description proposal

[edit]

I propose changing this short description are longer than 60 characters:

−
Ethnocultural movement supporting a Jewish state in Palestine
+
Movement supporting a Jewish state in Palestine

TarnishedPath (talk · contribs) reverted two times [24], [25], even notifying me for self-reverting. For now, the user has been topic banned from Arab-Israeli conflict area for 90 days. Absolutiva 13:03, 10 May 2026 (UTC) — Absolutiva (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sockpuppet of SwissArmyGuy (talk · contribs). SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 11:19, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Even though ethnocultural should just be a dry academic word combining the root words ethnic and cultural, in reality it sounds like the bogeyman for some reason. If the short description is too long, it would be a good word to delete. Slava570 (talk) 14:01, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to national movement NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 14:13, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"National" is a bit overgeneric and our own first sentence describes it as a nationalist movement (or ethnocultural movement). Also fine with "political" movement, as per Cambridge dictionary.VR 17:20, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah it encompasses multiple fronts, the nationalism aspect was accentuated more in the 1930s didnt it? User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 17:29, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of scholarship refers to the movement as a national movement, though describing it as a political movement is not that far off (and is acceptable). @Bluethricecreamman In my experience, the nationalism was prominent in their texts all along (cf. Ten Essays).
If there's any disagreements on it I prefer to just stick with @Absolutiva's original proposal and mention none.
Also while we're at it, shouldn't it say "Movement supporting a Jewish homeland/national home in Palestine?"? NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 21:21, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, since this is what the founders spoke of, as described in plenty of secondary sources. If possible, I would also insert "place of refuge" since lots of people had literally nowhere else to go.MarkBernstein (talk) 02:12, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
National movement =\= nationalist movement. To say the former is to accept that nations are real rather than constructions. I’d there prefer the latter.
National home is better than state as not all Zionist pre-1948 wanted a state or thought it possible, while after 1948 it was a given so the movement became focused on building a national home. BobFromBrockley (talk) 05:21, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support for removing “ethnocultural” which I’ve always thought was just weird here. BobFromBrockley (talk) 05:23, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with @Slava570 here: it is technically an academic term which perfectly describes it, but to most readers it sounds very different; this is similar to the use of the term "myth" in The Exodus. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 11:06, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with @VR that "national" without further specification is over-broad, but it is explicitly a nationalist movement of a particular kind, i.e., ethnic, so we must retain that aspect. We are having a hotly contested RfC on this very page over if we can describe something differently from the way the originators described it (which in this case is "A Jewish State") so I would appreciate it if editors could at least maintain some degree of consistency here. As someone who thinks that we should use phrasing that is accurate I would be fine with VR's "political" descriptor or "ethnonationalist movement". Please do not change it until we have obtained affirmative consensus per the article requirements, which hopefully shouldn't take long. Smallangryplanet (talk) 09:04, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Smallangryplanet I was about to edit this to Absolutiva after finishing a comment I am currently crafting for another discussion. I am pretty sure it'd enjoy a consensus from all of us (@Bluethricecreamman, @Vice regent?) NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 09:05, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think about "Movement for Jewish self-determination in Palestine?" Slava570 (talk) 12:17, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how Zionists describe the movement so I would be opposed. Smallangryplanet (talk) 12:25, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's debatable, but just to be clear, you think the short description should be "how Zionists describe the movement?" Slava570 (talk) 12:28, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, the term self determination appears 15 times in the article and references, and the short description for Palestinian Nationalism is "Movement for self-determination and sovereignty of Palestine" But for some reason everything about Zionism must be negative, negative, negative... Slava570 (talk) 12:37, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think every other phrase in the article is subject to a test unlike any other article on wikipedia, where it is compared against the specific wording Zionists in the late 1800s used to describe the movement, and I don't see why the short description should be any different. The movement began with Der Judenstaat, so Ethnocultural movement supporting a Jewish state in Palestine (the current description) seems accurate to me. I don't think it's particularly value (negative or positive) laden. Smallangryplanet (talk) 12:58, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
People assume that ``Der Judenstaat`` means "The Jewish State". My understanding is that it is better translated as "The Situation of the Jews". MarkBernstein (talk) 13:56, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have reliable sources for this? Our own article on the work does not say this. Smallangryplanet (talk) 14:57, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
? In German staat is the word for state, not "situation". 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 16:36, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Simon Schama, eminent historian and author of a 2-volume Story of the Jews, wrote: "The correct translation of the title of Herzl's book is The State of the Jews, (Der Judenstaat) not the "Jewish State" There's a difference." Another: Herzl's " Die Judenstaat" shld be translated as "The State of the Jews" not "The Jewish State" - big difference, big issue". I know that’s not ideal sourcing, but it's a start. Kindle loc 12666 from Vol 2 of The Story of the Jews: “Though the ti9tle is habitually known in English as The Jewish State, Jaques Kornberg is right to point out that this is, in fact, a mistranslation of what Herzl actually had in mind, which was much more like “The State of the Jews”. The difference was, and is, important." My revision of State above was an error. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:49, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The distinction Schama draws at some length here is between a state suffused with or guided by Jewish law on the one hand, and a state where Jews of all sorts could live in safety on the other. Schama’s discussion of Der Judenstaat is quite extensive. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:54, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Herzl is anyway not what this is about. Unlike, say, Leninism, where Lenin’s own self-characterisation should be definitive, Zionism isn’t Herzlism. We need a description that overs him AND cultural Zionists and socialist Zionists in the interwar years AND the Stern Gang and Buber in the 1940s AND Zionists today. Ethnocultural isn’t that. Jewish state isn’t that. I’d suggest "Movement for Jewish self-determination and sovereignty in Palestine" or “Movement for a Jewish national home in Palestine" would be the most descriptive and all-encompassing. BobFromBrockley (talk) 03:20, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that definitive accounts of Herzl and the early Zionist Congresses are precisely definitive. Schama, a historian, is describing the growth of Zionism as the capstone of an account of The Jews from 1492 to the present. As a historian, he adduces evidence from what people said and did — especially when those people proved to be influential. I do agree with you on the description; I am trying to adduce another source that (a) does not accord with the current tenor of the article, and (b) seems to have been mysteriously overlooked, even though it is among the most conspicuous accounts of the nature and history of Zionism. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:32, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Smallangryplanet Zionists said "National home" so I think this is what you'd want to go with
  1. Theodor Herzl: The aim of Zionism—according to the program of last year's Basel Congress—is to create a home, safeguarded under public law, for the Jewish people in Palestine[1]
  2. Louis D. Brandeis: Zionism seeks to establish in Palestine, for such Jews as choose to go and remain there, and for their descendants, a legally secured home, where they may live together and lead a Jewish life[2]
  3. Chaim Weizmann: The task of Zionism, then, is to create a home for the Jewish people in Palestine[3]
  4. Nahum Sokolow: the Zionist programme can be stated thus: (1) The obtaining of Palestine as a 'Home' for the homeless people and as a spiritual home for the whole Jewish nation[4]
  5. Israel Zangwill: Zionism is a political movement to obtain for the Jewish people a publicly legally assured home in Palestine[5]
  6. Max Nordau: Let us never forget that we aspire to the creation of a publicly-recognised, legally-secured home for the Jewish people[6]
  7. Martin Buber: ...the three irreducible demands of Zionism. They are: [...] These demands, formulated simply in the concept of a 'National Home,' have been recognised[7]
  8. Arthur Ruppin: We believe that, by uniting all Jews in work on the building up of the Jewish National Home in Palestine, Zionism can serve as such an ideal[8]
  9. Moses Hess: Who would object if the Jews flung to decrepit old Turkey a few handfuls of gold, and said to her: 'Give me back my home and use this money to consolidate the other parts of your tottering empire?[9]
  10. (signed by) E. W. Tchelenow: The advance-guard was the organized Zionist party, which in 1897 by its programme demanded a home for the Jewish people in Palestine secured by public law... The moment has come to lay the foundations of a national home... From now onwards every gathering of Jews must have a practical aim, every speech must deal with a project, every thought must be a brick with which to build the National Home...[10]
NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 20:56, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We want secondary, not primary, sources. Katzrockso (talk) 00:00, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Katzrockso Smallangryplanet's comment suggested that he prefers how the Zionists described themselves. I myself didn't base my opinion on this NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 09:10, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping for secondary sources describing these primary sources. This is the standard we use for everything on this page, I'm told, so assuming there are secondary sources describing this, then we can base the short description on the phrasing Zionists themselves use. Personally, I think we can use secondary sources' description of Zionism (as an ethnocultural etc etc) for the short desc, but I would like to be consistent with the RfCs on this page. (So as to avoid yet another one...) Smallangryplanet (talk) 10:00, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
How about Jewish nationalist movement for a state in Palestine? Katzrockso (talk) 11:14, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As has been noted on this page before: WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation. In such cases, the original document is the best source because the original document will be free of any errors or misquotations introduced by subsequent sources. Slava570 (talk) 12:06, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree that primary sources are not always bad and they have their use. In this context, we want to use secondary sources for almost everything (beyond original quotations) because those are the types of sources that permit us to make inferences, analysis, etc, as well as establish WP:DUE weight. The issue is that we, as Wikipedia editors, shouldn't be the ones interpreting these quotes from Zionists, that's what we have secondary sources for.
WP:PRIMARYCARE (directly below WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD) states Material based on primary sources can be valuable and appropriate additions to Wikipedia articles, but only in the form of straightforward descriptive statements that any educated person—with access to the source but without specialist knowledge—will be able to verify are directly supported by the source.
What Zionists themselves said is not how we determine how to define Zionism. Certainly not on any other Wikipedia article do we use non-independent sources (supporters of a political ideology) to determine its definition and scope, but independent secondary scholarly analysis.
Hopefully this will help as an analogy (and I'm not saying these are similar); we don't take quotes from Donald Trump and Steve Bannon to define what the MAGA movement is. Katzrockso (talk) 12:48, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We're also discussing this here on the talk page, where we don't have the same requirements as in the article itself. Ten primary source quotes that show a clear pattern should not just be dismissed out of hand. They can inform our decisions for the article, and I'm sure that if there are ten such quotes, we should easily be able to find a secondary source that reflects what they say. Slava570 (talk) 13:57, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think at any rate we should still say "the Palestine region" to avoid confusion. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 12:33, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If ethnocultural is such a crucial part of Zionism that it cannot leave the short description, why not "ethnocultural movement for a Jewish state in Palestine"? This also brings it under 60 characters without touching any controversial words. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:24, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if we can remove ethnocultural there, we can then state "movement for a Jewish state in the Palestine region" since there is a distinction between Palestine and Palestine. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 11:26, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ethnocultural and Jewish is also redundant. What does it add to have both words? Slava570 (talk) 11:31, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that makes sense. And Jewish is more accurate since it's what the result of Zionism (Israel) actually describes itself as: a "Jewish and democratic state". VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 11:55, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As things stand GhostInTheMachine has further cut the SD down to Movement for a Jewish state in Palestine which is a mere 40 characters, the ideal length per WP:SD. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 16:36, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Lasted just 80 minutes . Remember: a Short description is not a definition — WP:SDNOTDEF — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 18:46, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored your version. I wasn't aware of WP:SD40. I'm a big believer in making wikipedia more accessible, and I would support any accurate SD within 40 characters or less. Currently yours is the best option.VR 23:16, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It feels odd to continue a discussion started by a confirmed sockpuppet, but if there is still a substantive issue to resolve, why not.
I support removing "ethnocultural" from the short description. Per WP:SDNOTDEF, the short description should identify the topic briefly, not settle every definitional nuance.
"Movement for a Jewish state in Palestine" seems concise and sufficiently clear. I would also be open to wording around "Jewish national home" if there is concern that "state" does not cover all periods of Zionism equally well. Michael Boutboul (talk) 11:55, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The sock's suggestion was already implemented. NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 11:58, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I just set the short description to Movement for a Jewish state in Palestine (40 characters) because that was a sensible SD. I was not aware of this discussion at that point — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 12:04, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen no opposition on this talk page so far so I changed it to "national home" NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 12:01, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Movement for a Jewish national home in Palestine (48 characters) is just longer... — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 12:07, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@NorthernWinds, I also oppose, self-revert[26] please.VR 20:27, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose it. Completely non-neutral. 🐈Cinaroot   20:53, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Vice regent already reverted by Cinaroot @Cinaroot why do you believe that it is not neutral? What's so neutral about "state" and what's so non-neutral about "national home"? NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 21:02, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
National home was a term used in the Balfour Declaration to describe a Jewish state. At the time, it was aspirational and somewhat vague. A home is not a state, and a state is not a home. A Jew may say informally that Israel is their home, but it is not neutral to describe a country or state as a home on Wikipedia. We should use standard, neutral terms like "state" instead of aspirational, vague, or emotional language such as "national home"
Now that Israel exists as a state, Zionism has sought to establish Israel as a state. So please describe it as clearly and neutrally as possible. No more "national home" or "homeland" etc.. In body, it may be fine based on the context. But not as a title or SD. Precision matters on Wikipepdia.
I'm not an expert on the matter, but Theodor Herzl called for a Jewish state (per the lede). Did he describe it as a "national home"? Anyway, is there anything greater or better than a state? Unless Zionists want to conquer the whole world and make it their home, what am I missing? There is no reason to use a lesser or more ambiguous term in the short description. 🐈Cinaroot   01:45, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The long-term significance of Zionism emphasizes that statehood is what is primarily aspired to by Zionists, even if some early Zionists sought other alternatives. We shouldn't be modifying the short description to accommodate a small milieu of historical Zionists. Katzrockso (talk) 02:32, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I didn’t want to get dragged into whatever was happening here over the last few weeks. But the SD change hit me. I have other concerns about the article. Anyway, I don't want to fight about that. 🐈Cinaroot   03:14, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Cinaroot I'm not sure to what extent this is true; would you say that Homeland for the Jewish people is a biased article?
We are not describing Israel as a "national home" but rather using vague terminology for a vague idea; it was not always clear that the goal is a state. @Katzrockso The Basel Program which unanimously passed in the first Zionist congress states that Zionism seeks to establish a home in Palestine for the Jewish people, secured under public law. The Jewish encyclopedia (1906) states in its Zionism entry: Movement looking toward the segregation of the Jewish people upon a national basis and in a particular home of its own; specifically, the modern form of the movement that seeks for the Jews "a publicly and legally assured home in Palestine," as initiated by Theodor Herzl in 1896, and since then dominating Jewish history. Many modern scholars use this terminology as well.
It wasn't until 35 years later that this would be overturned. If you still think it's too emotional I'm fine with "Jewish center in Palestine" or "Jewish national center in Palestine" as well.
Modern encyclopedias for comparison (I don't see any decisive consistency):
  • Britannica: Zionism, Jewish nationalist movement with the goal of the creation and support of a Jewish national state in Palestine, the ancient homeland of the Jews (Hebrew: Eretz Yisraʾel, “the Land of Israel”).
  • New World Encyclopedia: Zionism is an international political movement that originally supported the establishment of a homeland for the Jewish people in Palestine
  • Encyclopedia of Race and Racism: Zionism is an ethno-national ideology and a social movement that aimed to create and sustain a homeland for the Jewish people in the land of Zion (Palestine).
  • YIVO Encyclopedia: As a modern political movement, Zionism was created to achieve political independence for the Jewish people in the Holy Land.
  • Encyclopedia of Critical Psychology: Zionism is a movement for Jewish emancipation and self-determination
  • International Encyclopedia of Political Science: The word Zionism was created in the late 19th century to describe an ideology and a political movement whose objective was the rebuilding of a Jewish nation within a political framework. The goal was defined as a Jewish national home until 1942, when the establishment of a state was officially endorsed by the Zionists.
2 more for "state" and one more for "homeland"/"national home" here NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 07:25, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"nation" works too, the point for me is that it's a form of nationalism which entails a nation or nation-state. Katzrockso (talk) 07:43, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Katzrockso I think "nation" can be confusing because Zionists referred to the Jews as a nation (e.g. Israel has always been a nation of aristocrats, working out its own... (Zangwill, Speeches, letters p. 56); And although the majority of the Jewish nation lives in Russia, so that the number of those denied higher education in other countries... (Weizmann in Jüdischer Verlag, July 1902)
Nevertheless, I do support this compormise NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 09:18, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of sources that describe Zionism as a nationalist ideology aimed at establishing a Jewish state. I’m not disputing that some sources use other terms, such as homeland, instead.
Zionism can be defined in many ways, including as a nationalist, political, and/or ideological movement for the establishment and sustaining of statehood or a homeland for the Jewish people. [27] (Top results on Google search for me)
I don’t have a problem using words like “homeland” in the body. But in the SD and titles, it should be a more neutral description. And I’m still not hearing why using “statehood” to describe Zionism is false. Without that, I do not support using any other words in the SD. We go with the most neutral words when we have one.
Also, just a tip: no need to tag people when you reply unless it's very urgent, important, or necessary to avoid confusion. 🐈Cinaroot   17:09, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral in Wikipedia generally means neutral with regard to the sources, not our own perceptions. If the sources all say something that you perceive as positive, then it's neutral for us to say something positive, and vice versa for the negative. If your top Google search says homeland, that points to homeland being neutral for purposes of Wikipedia. Whether you perceive that as positive or negative doesn't matter. (And by the way, there's nothing especially positive about a people having or wanting a home, just like most other groups have a home). Slava570 (talk) 22:15, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We have established that sources say Zionism is a movement to establish a Jewish state or homeland or something similar. These sources describe it as a state. [28] [29][30] [31] [32] [33] and i can find more. This source describes it as statehood or a homeland.
history.com describes it as a movement to recreate a Jewish presence in Israel.
The question here is whether, in SD, we should describe it as a state, homeland, or national home, etc.
And yes—I perceive “state” as more neutral, less emotional, and clearer for our readers. I object to using “homeland” or “national home” to describe Zionism in SD. This is not about positive or negative. It’s about a choice we have. We have two choices, and both are correct. One is more neutral and less emotional. Even if you think it’s my perspective, that is fine. A Zionist may use aspirational language, but we can use more neutral, less aspirational language when sources support it. And the sources do support it (ie Jewish state). 🐈Cinaroot   22:55, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
An example of why this oversimplifies is binational Zionism which advocated for a binational state NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 05:40, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly does a "Jewish national home" signify a binational state? 🐈Cinaroot   06:00, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
A bi-national state is home to two nations - in this case, one of them would be the Jewish nation. "Jewish state" signifies one thing - and it is not compatible with binational Zionism NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 10:27, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
And there were and perhaps still are Zionist anarchists, most significantly Joseph Trumpeldor who wanted a non-state homeland, and cultural Zionists like Ahad Ha'am were not so far off that, not interested in statehood. Why can't we say "for a Jewish state and/or homeland in Palestine"? I.e. honour the vaguness. Is it too many characters? BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:27, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Too many characters.
Related Trumpeldor quote: There was a long conversation between R. and I about the war, about policy, about Zionism. I spoke to him about establishing a Hebrew center in the land of Israel under the auspices of England.[11] NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 10:51, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@NorthernWinds, "self-determination" and "political independence" are virtually synonymous with wanting to create a Jewish state.VR 02:13, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Can't self-determination also be achieved in an autonomous region/binational state? NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 05:41, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Theoretically, but was this the case for most Zionists? Chaim Gan writes: In the public discourse among Jewish Israelis, it is virtually presupposed that self-determination means the right to sovereignty or the hegemony of one ethnocultural group in a state of its own.[12] VR 02:18, 18 May 2026 (UTC) VR 02:18, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's much easier to follow this discourse when you already have a state
Penslar, Zionism: An Emotional State pp. 47-48 (if lazy read only the bolded parts):

Statist Zionism’s distinguishing characteristic is a focus on Jewish self-determination as the keystone supporting all other forms of Zionism... Initially, Statist Zionism did not necessarily demand a sovereign state for Jews in Palestine. The ZO’s Basel Program, affirmed at the First Zionist Congress in 1897, called for a Jewish “national home, secured by public law,” not a state. Herzl himself was willing to accept alternate arrangements for Palestine, such as a designated Jewish province of the Ottoman Empire or a Great Power protectorate, and in 1931 Weizmann said he would accept a Jewish demographic minority in British-administered Palestine. During the late 1920s, Jabotinsky supported dominion status for Palestine within the British Empire at a time when the dominions did not yet have full control over their foreign policy. (Jabotinsky said that “statehood” could be the same as the “state of Kentucky” or the “province of Ontario within the Dominion of Canada.”) During the 1920s and 1930s David Ben-Gurion was a statist in the sense that he wanted a well-organized, autonomous Yishuv with centralized power in the hands of the Jewish Agency Executive, which as of 1935 he controlled. Ben-Gurion assumed Palestine would become a Jewish–Arab federation until a prolonged Palestinian Arab revolt in the mid to late 1930s convinced him that this was impossible. Still, it was only in 1942, before the full scale of the Holocaust’s devastation had occurred and was not yet fully known, that Zionists formally demanded a state in the entirety of western Palestine to accommodate what they thought would be millions of refugees after the war.

(pinging those who discussed Herzl @MarkBernstein @Bobfrombrockley @Chicdat)
Imo this is significant enough to not have "state" in SD NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 08:52, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As I've been pinged, I have a strong preference for homeland over state if we have to choose, as homeland encompasses all Zionists at all times, whereas state encompasses most Zionist at most times. Would using "homeland or state" be an acceptable compromise though? BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:29, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Katzrockso suggested Jewish nation as a compromise NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 10:56, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase "all Zionists at all times" is an error: no one wanted a home for Zionists. Zionists wanted a Jewish homeland, a place where Jews could govern themselves and protect themselves. For much of the history of Zionism, the only time when Zionists had existed was "the present". Replacing "Jews" with "Zionists" has also become a dog-whistle in antisemitic media; it behooves us to use extra care. "Homeland", "state", or "nation" are all acceptable, though "homeland" has the advantage of accurately reflecting the expectations of early Zionists who thought statehood a bridge too far and the Ottoman suzerainty permanent. MarkBernstein (talk) 13:46, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I obviously didn’t express myself clearly as you’ve completely misunderstood me. I meant that all Zionists at all times (since they existed) have wanted a national home for Jews - whereas only some Zionists at some times have wanted a state for Jews. BobFromBrockley (talk) 01:26, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(@Cinaroot you also discussed Herzl) NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 10:55, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I believe either retaining the stable version or adjusting to "ethnonationalist movement" is appropriate. Both are supported by reliable secondary sourcing rather than WP:PRIMARY.
Dropping the qualifier entirely (e.g., "movement supporting a Jewish state") makes the description less informative and less neutral, as it obscures what kind of movement it is. "Political" or "national" alone are overly broad and fail to capture what distinguishes Zionism from other political movements, per the sources.
Importantly, "ethnocultural" and "ethnonationalist" are not pejorative terms in academic usage. They are descriptive categories used across many contexts (e.g., Armenian nationalism, Kurdish nationalism, etc.).
I oppose variations of "Jewish movement". "Jewish" identifies the group, while "ethnocultural" or "ethnonationalist" identifies the type of nationalism. These are not interchangeable. One specifies who, the other specifies what kind of movement.
It also excludes the significant non-Jewish part of the Zionist movement that is covered in the sources and in the body, such as Christian Zionism.
Concise versions I support that are accurate, policy-aligned, and consistent with the word count requirements:
  • Ethnocultural movement for a Jewish state
  • Ethnonationalist movement for a Jewish state
  • Ethnonationalist movement for a Jewish state in Palestine
The first two are best for WP:SD40.
As noted, a large body of academic literature classifies Zionism as ethno-religious nationalism, a movement centered on the self-determination of a specific ethno-religious group. These include:
Chaim Gans, A Just Zionism, Oxford University Press (2008), cited in the article, has a chapter titled "Zionism as an Ethnocultural Nationalism". Gans writes on p. 3: Zionism belongs to the category of ethnocultural nationalism, according to which groups sharing a common history and culture have fundamental and morally significant interests in adhering to their culture and in sustaining it for generations. Cultural nationalism holds that such interests warrant political recognition and support, primarily by the means of granting the groups in question the right to national self-determination or self-rule.
Steven Beller, author of the Oxford Short History on Anti-Semitism and monographs including on Herzl, states in In Zion's hall of mirrors, Patterns of Prejudice (2007) p. 215: Zionism is an ethnonationalist ideology, and on pp. 226–227: Yet Zionist ideologues, such as Moses Hess, Leon Pinsker, Nathan Birnbaum, Ahad Ha’am and Herzl, took modern European notions of nationalism and transposed them on to the Jewish example. Their aim was to turn a group with a complex ethnic, religious and historical basis of community into a nation like all other nations, and, following the trends of the time, one with an ethnonational, not civic national base. Zionism has always been, almost by definition, an ethnonationalist movement. How can it be otherwise when its principal goal was the creation of a state whose principal criterion for membership was being Jewish?
Yaacov Yadgar, an expert on Zionism, writes in Israel’s Jewish Identity Crisis, Cambridge University Press (2020) p. 180: This liberal-Zionist stance does not offer, in other words, a challenge to the ‘demographic’ outlook. Such a challenge would offer, for example, alternative ways for understanding the notion of Jewish sovereignty, such that do not rely on the number of Jews but rather on some core Jewish constitutive normative infrastructure. Rather, as this book has discussed throughout, the foundational Zionist, ethnonationalist sense by which the Jew precedes Judaism, meaning that descent trumps normative outlooks and traditions, has been a mainstay of (political-Zionist) ‘Jewish politics,’ as this notion is understood and maintained by all major streams of Israeli political thought.
Israeli cultural historian Alon Confino has an article devoted to the subject, "The Nakba and the Zionist Dream of an Ethnonational State", History Workshop Journal 95, no. 1 (2023), pp. 131–153.
The entirety of scholarship in the field of settler-colonialism also explicitly designates Zionism as ethnocultural/ethnonationalist. For instance, Jeff Halper in Decolonizing Israel, Liberating Palestine: Zionism, Settler Colonialism, and the Case for One Democratic State Pluto Press (2021) states on p. 33: Zionism was a Central/Eastern European form of ethno-nationalism. He continues: Zionism adopted this form of ethno-nationalism, and exported it to Palestine. Lf8u2 (talk) 23:58, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Based on the above discussion, I would advocate this short description:

Ethnonationalist movement for a Jewish homeland in Palestine.

This is based on scholarship that's been presented in this talk page discussion. "Ethnonationalist" is supported by academic sources like Chaim Gans, Steven Beller, Yaacov Yadgar, Jeff Halper, and Alon Confino; thanks Lf8u2 for this summary. "Homeland" is based on Penslar; thanks NorthernWinds for this. If there were consensus to remove "in Palestine," I would understand, though of course this location has been the primary focus of the movement and associated history. -Darouet (talk) 03:27, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This would land us about where we started with the length. NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 16:14, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Ethnonationalist movement for a Jewish state/homeland is best per the sources. For length purposes "in Palestine" can be left out if that is an issue. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 19:54, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
For length purposes "in Palestine" can be left out if that is an issue Strong oppose per this NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 20:20, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I was interested, so I went and checked the short descriptions for other forms of nationalism.
Irish nationalism - Political movement
French nationalism - Political ideology
British nationalism - Political ideology and movement in the United Kingdom
Arab nationalism - Political ideology
African nationalism - Group of political ideologies
Based on this, I wonder if we are making the mistake of trying to define "Zionism", when we should just be providing a short description so a reader could identify which article they are looking for (per WP:SDNOTDEF). Katzrockso (talk) 08:53, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Based on Pan-Arabism, Pan-Slavism, and Hindutva I'd propose Jewish nationalist political ideology or Jewish nationalist movement. Katzrockso (talk) 09:21, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Katzrockso I oppose this proposal since it would land us too close to the ITO and other Jewish nationalisms. Perhaps Jewish nationalist movement for Palestine can work. In my opinion Movement for a Jewish homeland in Palestine would be best both length wise and accuracy wise NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 16:21, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Also relevant is Palestinian Nationalism - Movement for self-determination and sovereignty of Palestine Slava570 (talk) 11:27, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's not unusual for academic work to treat liberatory nationalist movements as being distinct from entrenched or colonial nationalist movements. Simonm223 (talk) 11:45, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's the antizionist characterization so not NPOV. Sources characterize both movements in a variety of ways. Slava570 (talk) 14:07, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No that's me explaining to you why certain nationalist movements are treated differently from others by academia. Simonm223 (talk) 15:48, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What is colonial nationalism? The only definition I could find is one by a non-RS saying that it is the political movement and ideology that emerged in colonized regions, where people sought to assert their identity and demand independence from colonial powers. If this is true, I do not understand how these could be seen as distinct NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 16:11, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, I was referring to the sort of nationalism prevalent in Settler colonial countries such as the United States, Canada and Israel. Simonm223 (talk) 16:13, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, thanks NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 16:15, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ The Complete Diaries of Theodor Herzl 2
  2. ^ Brandeis on Zionism
  3. ^ Chaim Weizmann, excerpts from his historic statements
  4. ^ "Poland and the Jews", Nahum Sokolow, in The Maccabaean, 1 October 1915, pp. 94-96.
  5. ^ Speeches, Articles and Letters of Israel Zangwill
  6. ^ Ninth Zionist congress speech
  7. ^ Arabs-Jewish Unity - testimony before the anglo american unquiry commission
  8. ^ The Jews in the Modern World
  9. ^ Rome and Jerusalem
  10. ^ History of Zionism 2
  11. ^ Letter, 28.8.1915 (written from Gallipoli)
  12. ^ Gan, A Just Zionism, page 55

Enforced BRD

[edit]

Please note that the editing restriction for this page has been changed from "consensus required" to "enforced BRD". -- asilvering (talk) 03:22, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What's the practical difference? Katzrockso (talk) 03:43, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Per [34], if an edit is reverted nobody can add it back in until at least 24 hours of no objection from a talk oage discussion (i think). (If there is an objection, edit probs can’t go back in till consensus found somehow) User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 05:13, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's only the editor who made the original edit who cannot reinstate it under those circumstances. Other editors can reinstate it, with no need for prior affirmative consensus on the talk page. -- asilvering (talk) 08:41, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
At the end of the day it's all the same thing. The article needs consensus NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 10:30, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, because now the scenario which I described here can be avoided. CRP prevents tag-team edit warring at the cost of rewarding stonewalling. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 13:25, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that it's no longer possible for editors to game the consensus required provision to stonewall and retain the status quo, as edits can be restored by someone other than the person who originally made it without having to hold an RfC or lengthy talk page discussion. Previously, one editor could revert for basically any reason at all and then stonewall a talk page discussion to prevent that proposed change from ever happening. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 13:31, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all for anything that might help prevent the constant RfCs, which most editors that are somewhat neutrally minded and not particularly emotionally invested in the topic do not have the energy to keep up with. ⹃Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 06:56, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
+1
EaglesFan37 (talk) 14:18, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for sources on territorial aspiration

[edit]

Following the close of the last RfC and in the spirit of what was recommended going forward in that close, I want to make an effort to address in the body one part of the disputed sentence: Zionist territorial aspirations. The source I'm most familiar with on this is Nadav Shelef's Evolving Nationalism, which I think is a good source for this - book-length treatment published by a university press that looks specifically at the territorial aspirations of different Zionist factions (Labor, Revisionist and Religious Zionists) over time. However I'm conscious that this is only one source. There are other good sources that will be useful here focussing on specific moments (e.g. the Peel commission, or the Oslo accords) - we should use those but they're less well-suited than Shelef to our particular task at giving a comprehensive view over time. If anyone has any suggestions for sources, please share.

What I envision here is a sub-section in the Beliefs section (probably under A Jewish home and state in Palestine), but it's early yet so a great time for other ideas and discussion on general direction. Samuelshraga (talk) 17:08, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Before we do that we may want to address the nonsensical section "Claim to a Jewish demographic majority" (somehow claiming that a Jewish majority exists is part of the beliefs of Zionism?) just renamed it to "Jewish majority". Instead of discussing the belief itself it discusses the mechanism and overly focuses on the Arab-Israeli conflict. NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 17:33, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with "Before we do that" - these two things need not be dependent on each other and can take place simultaneously and separately. Samuelshraga (talk) 17:38, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's valid. This Penslar book can probably help NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 17:49, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]