| This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Zionism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10,
11,
12,
13,
14,
15,
16,
17,
18,
19,
20,
21,
22Auto-archiving period: 30 days
 |
 | This 
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
 | Zionism is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | |||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
 | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
|
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
This added section appears simply to be taken from only one source (political activist Norman Finkelstein). Even the quotations from Ben-Gurion and Morris are merely taken from Finkelstein and represent his selections and interpretations of their words.
"Following the establishment of the modern state of Israel, Zionism became an ideology that supports the development and protection of the State of Israel as a Jewish state." this isn't an accurate definition of modern Zionism. Some varying definitions: the national ideology of Israel Vox Anyone has others that could be considered? Makeandtoss ( talk) 20:19, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- Very interestingly Pappe calls Zionism a state ideology which I personally think is a perfect characterization, that is certainly better and more reflective of reality than the “development and protection of Israel.” Any other sources have mentioned similar definitions?
Makeandtoss (
talk) 20:56, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- Where did you find this? DMH223344 ( talk) 22:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'm only just starting to flip through the book, but "Zionism: an emotional state" by Penslar and the citations within looks like it could be useful here.
DMH223344 (
talk) 17:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- It was a podcast so not very relevant, should have been clearer. But is still in my opinion a perfect definition, not sure yet if it is supported by RS or not.
Makeandtoss (
talk) 09:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- "Political ideology" is very well represented in sources. "Development and protection" seems not quite right, the modern idea as I understand it is that Jews are a people or a nation and the State is supposed to be their "home", a sort of Jewish nationalism.
Selfstudier (
talk) 10:04, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- That sounds right, and is consistent historically as well. If you have specific sources I would appreciate if you could share. No need for page numbers.
DMH223344 (
talk) 14:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- There have been different sorts of Zionism over the years, supposedly secular, the version with a religious overlay has a hold these days. Selfstudier ( talk) 14:27, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- On sourcing, idk where to start, there is plenty of it around, maybe start with Beyond the Nation-State: The Zionist Political Imagination from Pinsker to Ben-Gurion - Dmitry Shumsky Intro and conclusions. Selfstudier ( talk) 14:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- That sounds right, and is consistent historically as well. If you have specific sources I would appreciate if you could share. No need for page numbers.
DMH223344 (
talk) 14:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- "Political ideology" is very well represented in sources. "Development and protection" seems not quite right, the modern idea as I understand it is that Jews are a people or a nation and the State is supposed to be their "home", a sort of Jewish nationalism.
Selfstudier (
talk) 10:04, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- It was a podcast so not very relevant, should have been clearer. But is still in my opinion a perfect definition, not sure yet if it is supported by RS or not.
Makeandtoss (
talk) 09:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Saw that you added a vox citation for this. The author is zach beauchamp who also once wrote in vox that there is a bridge for palestinians to travel between the west bank and gaza. I don't think we should cite his work on this topic. DMH223344 ( talk) 13:49, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Why is settler colonialism mentioned as a criticism of Zionism rather than how it is defined? It seems even Israeli historian Benny Morris has labelled it as such, and that its early proponents understood it as such. Makeandtoss ( talk) 12:06, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed the description as a settler colonialist project should not be limited to the criticism section.
DMH223344 (
talk) 13:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- Especially because before it went out of date, early Zionists explicitly referred to their ideology as colonial
The Great Mule of Eupatoria (
talk) 14:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- I also agree settler colonialism shouldn't be limited to the criticism section. But remember that "colonial" is not the same thing as "settler colonial"; Zionists referred to themselves as colonial, not settler colonial.
Levivich (
talk) 14:51, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- They did refer to themselves as settlers though.
DMH223344 (
talk) 16:02, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yes and that's where confusion comes in. They described themselves as settlers and their venture as colonialism, but that is not an admission that Zionism is settler colonialism. Settler colonialism is a specific theory developed by Patrick Wolfe and others, and popularized in his 2006 paper, it's a term of art. People saying "we are settlers and colonists" 100 years before that aren't talking about Patrick Wolfe's theory; today, people who talk about settler colonialism are talking about Wolfe's theory. What I'm saying is we shouldn't confuse the words for the concept.
- In fact, the reality is sort of the reverse: it's not that Zionists thought of themselves as settler-colonialists and Wolfe documented it; it's more the opposite, Wolfe used the term "settler colonialism" to describe Zionism and other similar colonialism (e.g. USA, Europe) and to distinguish it from "regular" or traditional colonialism (the non-settling kind of colonialism). Because settler colonialism is a 21st-century concept, 19th-century uses of the words "settler" and "colonialism," even used together, are not and cannot be a reference to the 21st-century concept.
- BTW, to be clear, that doesn't mean Zionism isn't settler colonialism, it just means that Zionists couldn't have described themselves as settler colonialists because the concept had not been invented yet. Can't use 19th-century writing as an admission of a 21st-century concept.
Levivich (
talk) 17:16, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- I see, was not aware of that. Would it then be more technical to simply refer to it as “colonial” in this case?
The Great Mule of Eupatoria (
talk) 05:29, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- I think so. There was discussion about this recently on the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict page, and consensus to refer to Zionism as both "immigration" and "colonization", and Zionists as both "immigrants" and "settlers", because sources seem to use all that language interchangeably.
Levivich (
talk) 13:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- Immigrants? What type of immigrant starts a
revolution and creates a political
regime supported by its own military forces?
Dimadick (
talk) 15:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- Not quite like that and the British/allied powers helped things along. Selfstudier ( talk) 15:18, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- I think Jews who moved to Palestine/Israel were all "settlers" before 1948 and "immigrants" after 1948, but the sources don't agree with me. Levivich ( talk) 15:51, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- Immigrants? What type of immigrant starts a
revolution and creates a political
regime supported by its own military forces?
Dimadick (
talk) 15:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- However, under current terminology settlers who seek to colonize and harbour the intent to displace the local population are settler colonialists, not conventional colonialists, who preeminently seek to extract resources. Iskandar323 ( talk) 15:28, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- I think so. There was discussion about this recently on the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict page, and consensus to refer to Zionism as both "immigration" and "colonization", and Zionists as both "immigrants" and "settlers", because sources seem to use all that language interchangeably.
Levivich (
talk) 13:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- I actually disagree with the dependence on Wolfe's theory of settler colonialism especially considering there are other conceptions of settler colonialism. See Englert:
For instance, in explaining the difference between settler and franchise colonies, Wolfe wrote: ‘In contrast to the kind of colonial formation that Cabral or Fanon confronted, settler colonies were not primarily established to extract surplus value from indigenous labour. Rather, they are premised on displacing indigenes from (or replacing them on) the land.’24 A striking issue with this formulation is that Algeria – the colonial formation confronted by Fanon – was a French settler colony. Similarly, Veracini, in his Settler Colonialism: A Theoretical Overview, writes, ‘while the suppression of indigenous and exogenous alterities characterises both colonial and settler colonial formations, the former can be summarised as domination for the purpose of exploitation, the latter as domination for the purpose of transfer.’
- Which also explains that there are fundamental aspects of settler vs franchise colonialism that can apply, even if we don't take eg Wolfe's theory exactly.
DMH223344 (
talk) 15:56, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- The diverging colonial approaches seem pretty well understood in the literature, regardless of the precise terminology used. It seems clear that the concept preceded the term, just as the concept of colonialism in general preceded 20th-century colonial studies. Iskandar323 ( talk) 16:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- I see, was not aware of that. Would it then be more technical to simply refer to it as “colonial” in this case?
The Great Mule of Eupatoria (
talk) 05:29, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- They did refer to themselves as settlers though.
DMH223344 (
talk) 16:02, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- I also agree settler colonialism shouldn't be limited to the criticism section. But remember that "colonial" is not the same thing as "settler colonial"; Zionists referred to themselves as colonial, not settler colonial.
Levivich (
talk) 14:51, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- Especially because before it went out of date, early Zionists explicitly referred to their ideology as colonial
The Great Mule of Eupatoria (
talk) 14:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- Some sources referring to Zionism as settler-colonialism:
- Masalha:
Zionist settler-colonialism is at the heart of the conflict in Palestine; settler-colonialism is a structure not an episode (Wolfe 2006). Zionist settler-colonialism is deeply rooted in European colonialism. Ignoring the existence and rights of indigenous peoples, British colonialists often saw large parts of the earth as terra nullius, ‘nobody’s land’. This (originally Roman legal) expression was used to describe territory which was not subject to the sovereignty of any European state – sovereignty over territory which is terra nullius may be acquired through occupation and/or settler-colonisation.
- Cleveland:
Zionism was a settler colonial movement, very much like the movement of other Europeans who moved to the Americas, parts of Africa as well as Australia and New Zealand.
- Pappe:
Zionism as a settler colonial movement was able to colonize Palestine almost in its entirety regardless of its demographic minority.
- Shlaim:
DMH223344 ( talk) 16:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC)The Zionist movement was a settler-colonial movement, which had its roots in late nineteenth-century Europe, as a response to the problem of European antisemitism.
- You are quoting sources famously known for their critical view of Zionism, they do not represent the mainstream view of the movement.
HaOfa (
talk) 17:19, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- You can add Al-Haq and 90 Palestinian and international organisations that "sent a joint submission to the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory examining Zionist settler colonialism and apartheid as the root causes of Israel’s ongoing violations of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people."
- Not entirely sure what you mean by "mainstream" (or when) but the settler colonial paradigm is clearly a significant view that cannot be blithely dismissed.
Selfstudier (
talk) 17:28, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- @
Selfstudier, you seem like an experienced editor, and at this point I suppose it should be clear that advocacy organizations are not reliable sources. I also agree with the above: Ilan Pappe, Nur Masalha, and Avi Shlaim are known for their critical analysis, often presenting fringe views, of Zionism and Israel. Pappe himself was a central figure in Hadash, a far-left party in Israel, and multiple reliable sources label him a controversial figure. I see no reason to change the current lead, which accurately portrays the settler-colonialist view as a critical view. I'm really noticing more and more of these fringe views taking center stage in these articles, and honestly, it's starting to be really concerning.
ABHammad (
talk) 07:14, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- "Critical analysis" is a set term that doesn't mean what I think you think it does; "critical analysis" means that their efforts are thorough and in-depth, and it's a compliment. Critical analysis is exactly what we would want here.
Iskandar323 (
talk) 07:38, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- You understood what I meant.
ABHammad (
talk) 07:58, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, but the reason why "critical analysis" contains the word "critical" is because the obvious truth that only true "critics" tend to provide the most thorough, in-depth and no-holds barred analysis. In the analysis and assessment of an ideology, ideological insiders are hardly going to provide the most fullsome or critical analysis. Who would you have do the analysis here? What's the mainstream, and how do you define it?
Iskandar323 (
talk) 08:31, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- Exactly, the "critical" in " critical analysis" is a reference to critical thinking, not criticism. Levivich ( talk) 15:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, but the reason why "critical analysis" contains the word "critical" is because the obvious truth that only true "critics" tend to provide the most thorough, in-depth and no-holds barred analysis. In the analysis and assessment of an ideology, ideological insiders are hardly going to provide the most fullsome or critical analysis. Who would you have do the analysis here? What's the mainstream, and how do you define it?
Iskandar323 (
talk) 08:31, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- You understood what I meant.
ABHammad (
talk) 07:58, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- You are at liberty to add contradictory sourcing, dismissing sourcing that you don't like as fringe is insufficient. If it is fringe, then finding a reliable source saying that should be possible. Selfstudier ( talk) 09:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- "Critical analysis" is a set term that doesn't mean what I think you think it does; "critical analysis" means that their efforts are thorough and in-depth, and it's a compliment. Critical analysis is exactly what we would want here.
Iskandar323 (
talk) 07:38, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- This is Levivich comment from Nakba talk page:
- "FYI see sources/quotes at
Talk:Zionism as settler colonialism#Sources, including this one:
Pappe 2020 (free):
Still, despite a body of scholarship and research that frames the Zionist movement as a settler-colonial project—including the relatively new Settler Colonial Studies, a journal that, at this writing, has already devoted two special issues to Palestine—such a depiction is not accepted in mainstream academia (or the media generally). By and large, Israel/Palestine is still perceived as a conflict between two national movements that are equally responsible for violence—one of them a Western-style democracy that occasionally resorts to excessive power, and the other an Arab society endowed with a violent political culture.
Of course there are other views (and maybe even a more recent one from Pappe, idk), but the complications are that: some RS say it's colonialism, some say it's settler-colonialism, some say neither, some say it was one of those things at some points in time and another one at other points in time, some say it's a mixture, etc." - So Pappe thinks it is but at least in 2020 admits it is not "mainstream". It is still a significant view though and is not anyway a criticism as such, it's a description.
-
Sabbagh-Khoury (2022) says "For now, the settler colonial paradigm is the work of a relatively small group of scholars, but their numbers are increasing rapidly, in part because it is becoming a project of collective study carried out in cooperation with international scholars, not the theoretical occupation of few isolated individuals." Clearly not fringe.
Selfstudier (
talk) 12:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- Your quote explicitly says "small group of scholars" (with the rest all crystal ball) and then you say "clearly not fringe". What's the point in quoting a source if you're ignoring what it says?
HaOfa (
talk) 08:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- And what is the point in ignoring the rest of the sentence?
Selfstudier (
talk) 09:02, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Crystal ball claims, the current situation is what it is, a small group of scholars promoting this view. It totally doesn't matter if there is a cooperation with international scholars (as opposed to Palestinian ones), they could be part of a fringe group as well.
- Pappe is a former politician associated with a far-left group who openly identifies as anti-Zionist, while he is entitled to his opinions, his stance doesn't necessarily indicate a mainstream following. There's zero base for this whole thing... HaOfa ( talk) 09:08, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- You are aware that the article
Zionism as settler colonialism exists? In other words, it is a notable subject.
Selfstudier (
talk) 09:04, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Notable, maybe, but again that doesn't change the fact it is a fringe view. There is an article on
Modern flat Earth beliefs, does that make it a mainstream view?
HaOfa (
talk) 09:10, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- No, it means that it is a notable subject, that is, there is a sufficiency of reliable sources dealing with the topic. I'm still waiting for anyone with an actual source saying that ZaSC is fringe as opposed to merely expressing their own opinion that it is.
Selfstudier (
talk) 09:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- this is unwise, when a theory is fringe, you won't find many sources that would say it is fringe - they would just ignore it. In this way we will just perpetuate fringe views.
HaOfa (
talk) 09:20, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Poppycock. Selfstudier ( talk) 09:21, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Wolfe's seminal 2006 paper on this has 7,500+ Google scholar cites. "Fringe"? Lol. Levivich ( talk) 13:57, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- this is unwise, when a theory is fringe, you won't find many sources that would say it is fringe - they would just ignore it. In this way we will just perpetuate fringe views.
HaOfa (
talk) 09:20, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- No, it means that it is a notable subject, that is, there is a sufficiency of reliable sources dealing with the topic. I'm still waiting for anyone with an actual source saying that ZaSC is fringe as opposed to merely expressing their own opinion that it is.
Selfstudier (
talk) 09:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Notable, maybe, but again that doesn't change the fact it is a fringe view. There is an article on
Modern flat Earth beliefs, does that make it a mainstream view?
HaOfa (
talk) 09:10, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- And what is the point in ignoring the rest of the sentence?
Selfstudier (
talk) 09:02, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Your quote explicitly says "small group of scholars" (with the rest all crystal ball) and then you say "clearly not fringe". What's the point in quoting a source if you're ignoring what it says?
HaOfa (
talk) 08:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- @
Selfstudier, you seem like an experienced editor, and at this point I suppose it should be clear that advocacy organizations are not reliable sources. I also agree with the above: Ilan Pappe, Nur Masalha, and Avi Shlaim are known for their critical analysis, often presenting fringe views, of Zionism and Israel. Pappe himself was a central figure in Hadash, a far-left party in Israel, and multiple reliable sources label him a controversial figure. I see no reason to change the current lead, which accurately portrays the settler-colonialist view as a critical view. I'm really noticing more and more of these fringe views taking center stage in these articles, and honestly, it's starting to be really concerning.
ABHammad (
talk) 07:14, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- Who said we are quoting what the movement says about itself? We are quoting what reliable sources are saying; reliable sources by scholars. Pappe and Shlaim are two of the most prominent historians in the field and can certainly not be dismissed as "fringe". Makeandtoss ( talk) 14:26, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- You are quoting sources famously known for their critical view of Zionism, they do not represent the mainstream view of the movement.
HaOfa (
talk) 17:19, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
I think this section needs more ideological variety, one example is Ho Chi Minh who frequently communicated with Ben-Gurion as shown here; [1] Another example is Civil rights Icon Bayard Rustin; [2], [3] https://www.jns.org/rustin-sowell-and-renewing-black-jewish-relations/
I am sure there are many others but I have to go, and It would be hard to find several at the current moment. Thank you for your patience.
You should also include Ber Borochov and Meir Vilner in the variants section, for the rare Communist Zionism. Emma Lazarus was also a Zionist.
Two more sources for Kurds and Mandeanism; 70.23.5.67 ( talk) 12:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- https://escholarship.org/content/qt2ds1052b/qt2ds1052b_noSplash_b0b0087d30def88f05e48b5dc022997b.pdf?t=py0wm5 I meant this 70.23.5.67 ( talk) 12:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Not done, unclear, please make edit requests in the form change X to Y, sourced appropriately. Selfstudier ( talk) 11:58, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
it is said that Napoleon Bonaparte advocated for zionism. and the source is just an article at haaretz with a quote of theodor herzl, which slightly refers to Bonaparte. very weak proof, Napoleon should be deleted from that paragraph. Mouhibay ( talk) 10:13, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed, thanks for bringing this up. The source points out that Napoleon's plan to resettle Jews in Jerusalem was short-lived and he later changed his mind and preferred integrating Jews in France.
- Noting here that I removed the entire paragraph as being unsourced and WP:UNDUE. No doubt there is plenty to be said about non-Jewish support for Zionism, and even support for Zionist ideas (return to Israel) that pre-dates the rise of Zionism in the late 19th century. But this content needs to be sourced to history books about Zionism, and ideally should include the context that much of this support was due to antisemitism (people wanted Jews to go to Israel because they wanted Jews to leave where they were). However, the paragraph was just a bunch of unsourced name-dropping. Levivich ( talk) 13:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
@ Selfstudier and האופה: Can the two of you please discuss here what you think this should say?
In particular, User:Selfstudier, can you please offer what you think should be said here as a direct quote from a source you cite? And maybe choose verbiage to acknowledge that the term "colonial project" may be interpreted differently by a general audience today than how it was interpreted by Zionists in late 19th century Europe?
If the original was in a language other than English, we should include the quote in the original language. Languages evolve, and a translation that may have been appropriate in the late 19th century may not be appropriate today. If you could use help with translation, we might be able to arrange that.
I think User:האופה has a point that the term "colonial project" may be inflammatory and therefore constitute POV editing in today's political environment. With luck, we might find a way to include that term as a direct quote from some Zionist from late 19th century Europe in a way that User:האופה and others will find acceptable.
DavidMCEddy ( talk) 07:29, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- Early Zionists sometimes referred to their project as "colonial" in the sense of establishing agricultural settlements (in Hebrew moshavot) and reviving Jewish life in the ancestral homeland. This quote appears to be used anachronistically in this context, to imply as if the Zionists were adherents of the contemporary sense of colonialism, the control of resources and people by countries, notably imperial powers, in foreign lands. This usage is more political than encyclopedic and totally unnecessary here.
HaOfa (
talk) 08:34, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- Agricultural land and water sources are resources, so agricultural settlements (or colonies) control resources. Iskandar323 ( talk) 14:02, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- @ Iskandar323: The text was added by yourself on 5 June, care to comment? The lead is a summary of the body and I assume you are relying on the material in para 4 of the lead. "Similarly, anti-Zionism has many aspects, which include criticism of Zionism as a colonialist,[26] racist,[27] or exceptionalist ideology or as a settler colonialist movement.[28][29][30][31][32] Proponents of Zionism do not necessarily reject the characterization of Zionism as settler-colonial or exceptionalist.[33][34][35]" Selfstudier ( talk) 09:42, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- Although it is true that Zionists called their settlements "colonies" (moshavot), it is more relevant here that they called their whole enterprise colonization. They used that word in English, and they used it in German. The minutes of the Zionist Congresses used that word hundreds of times, not for individual settlements but for the overall enterprise designed for mass settlement. Zionism only stopped calling itself colonial when the concept of colonialism developed a bad odor in world opinion. It is simply not true that the meaning of the words has changed in the interim (suppose a century from now the Mormons decide to settle all of Mars—we will call it colonization just the same). Of course one can identify differences between colonization by a nation state and colonization by some other group of people, but those differences were recognised back then in just the same way as they are recognised today. That difference is one of the motives behind modern analyses that distinguish "settler colonisalism" from other types.
Zero
talk 11:37, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, whatever Zionism is believed to be today, it emerged as an expressly colonial endeavour. Hence, the World Zionist Congress established the Jewish Colonial Trust; the Jewish Colonisation Association was established in the UK; and the like. This shouldn't be in the lead as a criticism, but as a basic description of the movement's early formulation. After 1948, the nature and characterisation of Zionism naturally morphed. Much more recently, the conceptual framework of "settler colonialism" has been applied, but that is a distinct label from the basic colonial characterisation, which early Zionism was open and unabashed about. Iskandar323 ( talk) 14:00, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- Although it is true that Zionists called their settlements "colonies" (moshavot), it is more relevant here that they called their whole enterprise colonization. They used that word in English, and they used it in German. The minutes of the Zionist Congresses used that word hundreds of times, not for individual settlements but for the overall enterprise designed for mass settlement. Zionism only stopped calling itself colonial when the concept of colonialism developed a bad odor in world opinion. It is simply not true that the meaning of the words has changed in the interim (suppose a century from now the Mormons decide to settle all of Mars—we will call it colonization just the same). Of course one can identify differences between colonization by a nation state and colonization by some other group of people, but those differences were recognised back then in just the same way as they are recognised today. That difference is one of the motives behind modern analyses that distinguish "settler colonisalism" from other types.
Zero
talk 11:37, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- I support inclusion of the word colonization or colonial in the lead; As others have said, Zionism began as an openly colonial project, aligned geopolitically and in many ways ideologically with European colonialism. We should not leave that out of the article because of a modern day aversion to the attitudes of the past. Unbandito ( talk) 22:08, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
The problem is that "colonialism" has multiple meanings. There's the way it is most commonly used today - with all the negative value judgment of the colonial enterprise as in the Colonialism article- "maintaining of control and exploitation of people and of resources by a foreign group of people. Colonizers monopolize political power and hold conquered societies and their people to be inferior to their conquerors". And there's colonialism in the sense of moving to a new place and establishing a settlement there- a colony - as in Colonization of Mars- migration and establishing long term presence, without any negative associations. Zionists thought of themselves in the latter sense, while the proposed edit will likely be understood in the former. Kentucky Rain24 ( talk) 16:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Zionists thought of themselves in the latter sense...
- this is just not true. See the writing of the leaders of the movement, and the scholarly discussion on these writings.
DMH223344 (
talk) 18:39, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- I am quite family with thew writings of the Zionist leaders, and none of them thought their project was about conquering, controlling and exploiting inferior people.
Kentucky Rain24 (
talk) 19:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- Strawman. Not the issue at hand, which is, was it a "colonial project", yes it was.
Selfstudier (
talk) 19:06, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- Not in the sense described in our article on "Colonialism"
Kentucky Rain24 (
talk) 19:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- There is no such link in the material that you reverted in
this diff.
Selfstudier (
talk) 19:11, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- The confusion as a result of multiple meanings I described above is obvious, wether or not a link exists. The text I restored has been in the article for years (with minor variations). I don't think there is agreement here to change it to the version you like,
Kentucky Rain24 (
talk) 19:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- What are the multiple meanings of "colonial project"?
Selfstudier (
talk) 20:24, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- read above
Kentucky Rain24 (
talk) 20:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- I did, answer the question, please.
Selfstudier (
talk) 20:32, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- read it again, I am not going to repeat myself.
Kentucky Rain24 (
talk) 20:34, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- You just did. Selfstudier ( talk) 21:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- read it again, I am not going to repeat myself.
Kentucky Rain24 (
talk) 20:34, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- I did, answer the question, please.
Selfstudier (
talk) 20:32, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- read above
Kentucky Rain24 (
talk) 20:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- What are the multiple meanings of "colonial project"?
Selfstudier (
talk) 20:24, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- The confusion as a result of multiple meanings I described above is obvious, wether or not a link exists. The text I restored has been in the article for years (with minor variations). I don't think there is agreement here to change it to the version you like,
Kentucky Rain24 (
talk) 19:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- There is no such link in the material that you reverted in
this diff.
Selfstudier (
talk) 19:11, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- Not in the sense described in our article on "Colonialism"
Kentucky Rain24 (
talk) 19:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- You've of course omitted the most relevant part of that paragraph which mentions settler colonialism specifically. "While frequently advanced as an imperialist regime, colonialism can also take the form of settler colonialism, whereby colonial settlers invade and occupy territory to permanently replace an existing society with that of the colonizers, possibly towards a genocide of native populations"
- Is your point that the early zionists didnt' think they were doing anything negative?
DMH223344 (
talk) 21:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- The early Zionists did not "invade" anything - they emigrated to a land with the authorization of its sovereigns, and the only territory they "occupied" was territory they bought or leased. I don't see anything negative in that,
Kentucky Rain24 (
talk) 21:37, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- You're citing the fact that Zionists got permission from colonial authorities to settle in Palestine as evidence that it wasn't colonialism??
Unbandito (
talk) 22:27, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think the Ottoman Empire colonized Palestine ("The Ottomans neither colonized the territories they conquered nor carried Ottoman Islamic law to all the new settlements" [4]), but let's assume ad argumentum that they did - getting permission from a colonial power to move to Palestine is not the same as colonizing it yourself - or do you think the Ciracassians also colonized Palestine? How about the Templars? Arabs who moved there during the Ottoman rule? Kentucky Rain24 ( talk) 22:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- You're citing the fact that Zionists got permission from colonial authorities to settle in Palestine as evidence that it wasn't colonialism??
Unbandito (
talk) 22:27, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- The early Zionists did not "invade" anything - they emigrated to a land with the authorization of its sovereigns, and the only territory they "occupied" was territory they bought or leased. I don't see anything negative in that,
Kentucky Rain24 (
talk) 21:37, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- Strawman. Not the issue at hand, which is, was it a "colonial project", yes it was.
Selfstudier (
talk) 19:06, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- I am quite family with thew writings of the Zionist leaders, and none of them thought their project was about conquering, controlling and exploiting inferior people.
Kentucky Rain24 (
talk) 19:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- Though I support both renderings in this article, I would point out that my edits changed the phrasing in the lead from a "colonial project" to "colonization" Unbandito ( talk) 00:15, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
For the editors who think that Wikipedia should not describe Zionism as "colonialism," can you name one book about Zionism that does not describe it as colonialism? Levivich ( talk) 21:32, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- You could start with המהפכה הציונית (The Zionist Revolution) by David Vital. There are many more.
Kentucky Rain24 (
talk) 21:56, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- Is that the same as
The Origins of Zionism, written in 1975?
Levivich (
talk) 22:00, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think so, it was published in 1978, and "The Origins" seems to be part 1 of a trilogy, which this isn't.
Kentucky Rain24 (
talk) 22:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- OK that's very old, and
WP:AGEMATTERS. And if Google Books is correct, it was published by the WZO.
[5] If there are many more as you say, it should be easy to link to a book written in the 21st century, in English, by an independent publisher.
Levivich (
talk) 22:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- Hi. Check out
this review by Dr. Benny Morris (starting from "Colonialism is commonly defined as"). With regards,
Oleg Y. (
talk) 11:45, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Benny Morris, in a book review, doesn't agree with Khalidi's The Hundred Years’ War on Palestine: A History of Settler Colonialism and Resistance, 1917–2017.
- And? Selfstudier ( talk) 12:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you, now we are getting somewhere. No doubt Benny Morris is real 21st scholarship. But, a few "buts":
- I know it's a bit pedantic, but that's not a book about Zionism, and neither is Khalidi's book a book about Zionism. That's Morris reviewing Khalidi's book about the conflict. A book review shouldn't be given as much WP:WEIGHT as a book, and a book about the conflict -- for this article -- shouldn't be given as much weight as a book specifically about Zionism (or the history of Zionism).
- I'm not sure that either Khalidi or Morris have ever written a book about Zionism? They are experts in the conflict, but I wouldn't call either of these " WP:BESTSOURCES" for this article.
- Nevertheless, even if we "count" this, we have one scholar (Khalidi) saying Zionism was colonialism, and one scholar (Morris) saying it wasn't. Call it a tie. So that begs the question: which, if either, is the mainstream view?
- I assume I don't have to prove that there are, say, three books entirely about Zionism that call it "colonialism," although I can post three if anyone wants. (If we open it up to looking at books about the conflict in general, and not just Zionism specifically, then there will be even more books like Khalidi's.) That leaves the question: are there more books/scholars (and I mean 21st century real scholars like Morris and Khalidi) that share Morris's view that it's not Zionism? I'm going to guess without looking that we'd find something by
Efraim Karsh agreeing with Morris's view that Zionism was not colonialism. And some would argue about whether Karsh "counts" but let's skip ahead and say Morris and Karsh are two. I could post like six examples that say "colonialism." So are there like six or more examples like Morris or Karsh that say "not colonialism"? What I'm getting at is that I think "colonialism" is the mainstream view and Morris is in the minority. "Prove me wrong"?
Levivich (
talk) 12:25, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Why would Karsh, an academic historian and professor (emeritus) of Middle East and Mediterranean Studies at King's College not count?
Kentucky Rain24 (
talk) 12:35, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Extreme bias, still, let's count him, still going to be a minority.
Selfstudier (
talk) 12:36, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- And Khalidi or Morris are not biased? C'mon, let's be serious.
Kentucky Rain24 (
talk) 12:41, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Both biased, of course, all sources are biased. Not extreme though.
Selfstudier (
talk) 12:42, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- I find Khalid to be every bit as extreme as Karsh, just from the other side. That's not a serious argument for exclusion. Kentucky Rain24 ( talk) 12:45, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Both biased, of course, all sources are biased. Not extreme though.
Selfstudier (
talk) 12:42, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- And Khalidi or Morris are not biased? C'mon, let's be serious.
Kentucky Rain24 (
talk) 12:41, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Aside from bias, I don't think Karsh has ever written a book about Zionism (as opposed to a book about the conflict). But I think we'd all agree to "count" Karsh so as not to be distracted by arguing about him, and still, Morris and Karsh would make a minority of two, so the question remains: who else is there among 21st-century scholars who say Zionism was not colonialism? (And note: the number of books about Zionism, meaning BESTSOURCES, that say it's not colonialism is currently 0.)
Levivich (
talk) 12:45, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- You are moving the goalposts (slightly, but moving them nonetheless). You first asked for " one book about Zionism that does not describe it as colonialism" and I gave you one, , which you dismissed on a pretext ("not 21st century"). Now you are asking for something else - multiple books that explicitly says it is "not colonialism" - that's not the way academic books on a topic are usually written, as opposed to polemics seeking to prove or disprove a point.
Kentucky Rain24 (
talk) 12:54, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- What was that about moving goalposts? There is no unresolved question here and no real argument against colonization (or colonial project).
Selfstudier (
talk) 12:57, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- I thought I explained it: Levivich first wrote 'can you name one book about Zionism that does not describe it as colonialism'. When that was done, he switched to "who else is there among 21st-century scholars who say Zionism was not colonialism" - Moving_the_goalposts#Logical_fallacy Kentucky Rain24 ( talk) 13:02, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- I'll take a book about Zionism -- 21st century independently written/published -- that either doesn't describe it as colonialism or says explicitly it's not colonialism, but to your point, Morris's book review disproves it: there you see him explicitly say not colonialism, so that is in fact how academic works are written. There are so many books/works about Zionism that say it's colonialism that if the mainstream view was that it wasn't colonialism, we'd have no problem coming up with many modern works that say so explicitly. As an example of this, I can show you modern scholarship that explicitly says the mainstream view is not that it's settler-colonialism, but I'm not aware of any that say it's not colonialism at all.
Levivich (
talk) 12:59, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- I said books are usually not written this way, not that you can't find an example or two that do. Morris is well known for his polemical style, and that is a book review - not a book.
Kentucky Rain24 (
talk) 13:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- I would still count crossing the first goalpost ("doesn't say colonialism") as a score :-) But we're still at zero examples...
- You know, 1978 was before the Israeli archives were opened, before the
New Historians, anything that old is obsolete when it comes to scholarship on this subject, so that doesn't count. That's why
WP:AGEMATTERS. Plus it appears to be out of print, published by the WZO, and in a language I do not know how to read so I can't verify it.
Levivich (
talk) 13:17, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Modern Zionism dates to the late 19th century, you think there's some mysteries document hidden in Israel's archives that suddenly exposes the true nature of Zionism as a colonial project that wasn't known before? You will note that the most notable of the New Historians - Morris - is actually one that holds the position that it is not colonialism.
- If you keep inventing pretexts (has to be a book, has to be explicitly about Zionism, has to be 21st century, has to be in English, has to be in print, can't be published by WZO[which incidentally is not quite accurate - it was published by Am Oved, an independent publisher, in partnership with WZO]) - then naturally you are going to arrive at the result you want.
- But here you go- Sachar's "A History of Israel: From the Rise of Zionism to Our Time ", 3rd edition revised and expanded, published in 2007
Kentucky Rain24 (
talk) 13:37, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
you think there's some mysteries document hidden in Israel's archives that suddenly exposes the true nature of Zionism as a colonial project that wasn't known before?
Yes, actually, that's exactly what the New Historians found in the archives, isn't it, and why people now call the Nakba an ethnic cleansing when they didn't before? Also there are other primary source documents that were declassified or published decades later, such as the diaries of leaders like Hertzl and Ben-Gurion, which caused historians to re-evaluate history. That's how it works, of course: documents get declassified, historians revise history. I'm not familiar with Sachar, thanks for that, I'll take a look. Levivich ( talk) 13:55, 9 June 2024 (UTC)- More goalpost moving. We were not discussing the Nakba, a 1947-1948 event, but the origins of Zionism.
- I can certainly see that released archival documents would shed new light on plans and goals of the 1947-1949 war, and whether or not the depopulation of Arab towns was pre-planned - but what has that got to do with the origins of Zionism 70 years earlier? Teh protocols of the 1st Zionist Congress from 1897 were open to all historians in 1975
Kentucky Rain24 (
talk) 14:25, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- That one wasn't goalpost moving, it's using the Nakba as an example of something, other than Zionism, that was re-evaluated when archives were unsealed, and as an example of the broader point, which is that as time goes on, historians learn new things about history, which is why we need to look at recent scholarship and not 50-year-old scholarship. This is true in every historical field (hence, Wikipedia has the WP:AGEMATTERS policy), but it's especially true when it comes to the history of Israel/Zionism, because there has been so much re-evaluation in the subject area over the last 50 years.
- As a concrete example of this, here is
Ilan Pappe writing in 1998 about "
Fifty Years Through the Eyes of “New Historians” in Israel," and the first section of that paper is called "Early Zionism Revisited", where he says
In the new historiography, Zionism began as a national awakening in Europe but turned into a colonialist movement when it chose Palestine as its target territory.
And I'd say that even that paper is outdated because it's 25 years old. Whatever was revisited by 1998 has been revisited again by 2024: Pappe has written many books and papers since, and so have Morris and Karsh and Khalidi and many other scholars. So we look at current scholarship, frankly the more recent, the better. As a kind of rule of thumb, I go with "21st century," it's an easy place to draw a line. Levivich ( talk) 14:47, 9 June 2024 (UTC)- I don't dispute that archival material can shed new light - I am disputing that there's anything in the Israeli archives (or any other archives for that matter) that could shed light on the origins of Zionism, when all the protocols of that movement were previously available. Kentucky Rain24 ( talk) 16:12, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- I looked and
Howard Sachar's
A History of Israel: From the Rise of Zionism to Our Time (Knopff 2007, 3rd ed.) describes Zionism as colonization, many many times in the book. Let me know if you want quotes.
Levivich (
talk) 15:02, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- yes, please. Kentucky Rain24 ( talk) 16:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- I said books are usually not written this way, not that you can't find an example or two that do. Morris is well known for his polemical style, and that is a book review - not a book.
Kentucky Rain24 (
talk) 13:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- What was that about moving goalposts? There is no unresolved question here and no real argument against colonization (or colonial project).
Selfstudier (
talk) 12:57, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- You are moving the goalposts (slightly, but moving them nonetheless). You first asked for " one book about Zionism that does not describe it as colonialism" and I gave you one, , which you dismissed on a pretext ("not 21st century"). Now you are asking for something else - multiple books that explicitly says it is "not colonialism" - that's not the way academic books on a topic are usually written, as opposed to polemics seeking to prove or disprove a point.
Kentucky Rain24 (
talk) 12:54, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Extreme bias, still, let's count him, still going to be a minority.
Selfstudier (
talk) 12:36, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Why would Karsh, an academic historian and professor (emeritus) of Middle East and Mediterranean Studies at King's College not count?
Kentucky Rain24 (
talk) 12:35, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Hi. Check out
this review by Dr. Benny Morris (starting from "Colonialism is commonly defined as"). With regards,
Oleg Y. (
talk) 11:45, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- OK that's very old, and
WP:AGEMATTERS. And if Google Books is correct, it was published by the WZO.
[5] If there are many more as you say, it should be easy to link to a book written in the 21st century, in English, by an independent publisher.
Levivich (
talk) 22:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think so, it was published in 1978, and "The Origins" seems to be part 1 of a trilogy, which this isn't.
Kentucky Rain24 (
talk) 22:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- Is that the same as
The Origins of Zionism, written in 1975?
Levivich (
talk) 22:00, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
I have the ebook so references are to "chapter, section" rather than page number. Bold and blue links are mine.
Sachar quotes
|
|---|
|
These are not the only mentions, but should be enough to demonstrate that Sachar describes Zionists as colonizers, and of course Zionists described themselves the same way. Levivich ( talk) 20:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for this. Go back and read what I wrote above about the multiple meanings of colonization. When someone writes, e.g " establish a model agricultural colony in Palestine" it is the exact parallel of a colony on Mars. This is also exactly what
User:האופה wrote at the top of this thread - 'Early Zionists sometimes referred to their project as "colonial" in the sense of establishing agricultural settlements (in Hebrew moshavot) and reviving Jewish life in the ancestral homeland. This quote appears to be used anachronistically in this context, to imply as if the Zionists were adherents of the contemporary sense of colonialism"
Kentucky Rain24 (
talk) 20:10, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- So tell me which do you think is true:
- You know something about the multiple meanings of colonization that Howard Sachar doesn't know, and Sachar made a mistake when he used the word "colonization" in his book, OR
- Sachar knows about the multiple meanings of colonization, and decided to use that word anyway
- I think it's #2.
- And BTW, you should drop the comparison of colonizing Palestine with colonizing Mars, because there are no people who live on Mars. So even if the Zionists thought they were colonizing a barren, empty land, they were wrong. Either way, this article says "colonization" because the sources say "colonization," and it really doesn't matter if editors think that's not the right word to use, because it's the word the sources use.
Levivich (
talk) 20:32, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- The fact that Mars is barren is exactly the point - it demonstrate you can "colonize" a land, in the sense of building communities there, w/o subjugating a population you believe to be inferior and exploiting it - which is the common, modern connotation of colonization, which was missing from early Zionist use of the term.
Kentucky Rain24 (
talk) 21:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, you can "colonize" a land, in the sense of building communities there, w/o subjugating a population you believe to be inferior and exploiting it ... if there are no people there! Anyway, do you think Sachar doesn't know the modern connotation of "colonization" and made a mistake using the word, or that he knows the modern connotation and used it anyway?
Levivich (
talk) 21:07, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- No, you can also an "colonize" a land, in the sense of building communities there, w/o subjugating a population you believe to be inferior and exploiting it even if there are people there. Do you think The People's Temple colonized Guyana when they established their colony there?
- I think Sachar didn't anticipate that 15 years later, wikipedia editors would try to use his choice of words in order to paint Zionists as subjugators.
Kentucky Rain24 (
talk) 21:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- You're absolutely right, Wikipedia should not call Zionists "subjugators." Let's instead use the exact same word Sachar used: "colonization."
Levivich (
talk) 22:13, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Or, we could just say what the article has said for a long time - "Zionism is a nationalist movement that emerged in the 19th century to enable the establishment of a homeland for the Jewish people in Palestine", without any potentially POV-laden terminology.
Kentucky Rain24 (
talk) 22:48, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
-
WP:NPOV says Wikipedia articles should say what mainstream scholarship says. So if mainstream scholarship says "colonization" (and it does), then it would be "POV-laden" to not say "colonization."
Levivich (
talk) 23:03, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Somehow this article existed for years without this characterization, even as a "featured article" without anyone claiming it violates NPOV.
Kentucky Rain24 (
talk) 23:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- This was a featured article from 2003 until 2004, when it was delisted. The
2003 version that was promoted to FA said (bold mine):
The 2004 version that was delisted from FA changed that line from "Jewish colonisation" to "Jewish immigration."The early Zionists were well aware that Palestine was already occupied by Arabs, who had constituted the majority of the population there for over a thousand years. The Zionist leaders generally shared the attitudes of other Europeans of the period in the matters of race and culture. In this view the Arabs were one of the world's many primitive races, who could only benefit from Jewish colonisation. This attitude led to the opposition of the Arabs being ignored, or even to their presence being denied, as in Israel Zangwill's famous slogan "A land without a people, for a people without a land". Generally though, such myths were propaganda invented by leaders who saw the Arabs as an obstacle to overcome, but not a serious one.
- So the FA version of this article said "colonisation."
- After all this discussion, we are still at zero modern books about Zionism that don't describe it as colonization.
Levivich (
talk) 04:58, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- Sure. And similarly, the current version of the article mentions colonization and colonies, multiple times, in a paragraphs discussing the actions of early Zionists like Montefiori, and if you wanted to include something like the featured article version, about the thinking of early Zionists that the natives would benefit form Colonization, somewhere in the body, that would porbbaly be fine.
- But as you obviously realize, that is not the same as describing Zionism as a colonial project in the first sentence of the lead of the article Kentucky Rain24 ( talk) 11:52, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- This was a featured article from 2003 until 2004, when it was delisted. The
2003 version that was promoted to FA said (bold mine):
- Somehow this article existed for years without this characterization, even as a "featured article" without anyone claiming it violates NPOV.
Kentucky Rain24 (
talk) 23:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
-
WP:NPOV says Wikipedia articles should say what mainstream scholarship says. So if mainstream scholarship says "colonization" (and it does), then it would be "POV-laden" to not say "colonization."
Levivich (
talk) 23:03, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Or, we could just say what the article has said for a long time - "Zionism is a nationalist movement that emerged in the 19th century to enable the establishment of a homeland for the Jewish people in Palestine", without any potentially POV-laden terminology.
Kentucky Rain24 (
talk) 22:48, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- You're absolutely right, Wikipedia should not call Zionists "subjugators." Let's instead use the exact same word Sachar used: "colonization."
Levivich (
talk) 22:13, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, you can "colonize" a land, in the sense of building communities there, w/o subjugating a population you believe to be inferior and exploiting it ... if there are no people there! Anyway, do you think Sachar doesn't know the modern connotation of "colonization" and made a mistake using the word, or that he knows the modern connotation and used it anyway?
Levivich (
talk) 21:07, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- The fact that Mars is barren is exactly the point - it demonstrate you can "colonize" a land, in the sense of building communities there, w/o subjugating a population you believe to be inferior and exploiting it - which is the common, modern connotation of colonization, which was missing from early Zionist use of the term.
Kentucky Rain24 (
talk) 21:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- So tell me which do you think is true:
Is it feasible to ask the people who list and delist "Featured Articles" what needs to happen to get this again listed as FA -- and whether any use of a term somehow related to "colonial project" or "colonization" can impact that?
To me "colonization" sounds more neutral than "colonial project".
Also, am I correct that we are discussing here exactly where in the lede to introduce a term like "colonial", "colonialism", ...?
I just found 42 matches in this article for "coloni", starting with the last sentence of the lede: "Similarly, anti-Zionism has many aspects, which include criticism of Zionism as a colonialist,[26] racist,[27] or exceptionalist ideology or as a settler colonialist movement.[28][29][30][31][32]"
The Israel-Hamas war was ongoing when this discussion began, and it's still continuing. I think the lede is fine as it is now. What do you think about not changing the lede and focusing on making sure that other uses of terms like "colonialism" and "colonialist" later in the article are used in a way that appears neutral, citing credible sources? ??? DavidMCEddy ( talk) 11:32, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- Material under discussion has once again been
POV editwarred out of the lead so I'm right out of AGF atm.
Selfstudier (
talk) 11:44, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- Did you similarly object when material under discussion was
POV edit warred back into the artilce, by people who share your POV?
Kentucky Rain24 (
talk) 11:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- The discussion above is concluded in favor of the material, that's the why of it. This article, once an FA isn't even a GA now, quite right, too.
Selfstudier (
talk) 11:57, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- What are the obstacles to getting it back to GA?
DavidMCEddy (
talk) 12:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- Stability in the article. Meanwhile it is written in a manner which encourages disputes over and frequent changes to content, GA and in particular FA, is not going to happen. Since this is primarily a kind of history article for the most part, stability with best sources should not actually be that difficult. Selfstudier ( talk) 12:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- What are the obstacles to getting it back to GA?
DavidMCEddy (
talk) 12:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- The discussion above is concluded in favor of the material, that's the why of it. This article, once an FA isn't even a GA now, quite right, too.
Selfstudier (
talk) 11:57, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- Did you similarly object when material under discussion was
POV edit warred back into the artilce, by people who share your POV?
Kentucky Rain24 (
talk) 11:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Round 2
Above in Round 1, we determined that nobody seems to know of any modern books about Zionism that do not describe it as colonization, although Benny Morris wrote a book review in which he said Zionism was not colonialism. The objection was raised, however, that even if this Wikipedia article should describe Zionism as colonization in the body, this description is not WP:DUE for the lead. So, let's look at how many modern books about Zionism mention colonization or colonialism in their titles. Here are some:
- Halper, Jeff (2021). Decolonizing Israel, Liberating Palestine: Zionism, Settler Colonialism, and the Case for One Democratic State. Pluto Press. ISBN 978-0-7453-4339-6.
- Nutt, S. (2019). Self-determination, Sovereignty and History: Situating Zionism in the Settler-colonial Archive. University of Exeter.
- Masalha, Nur (2014). The Zionist Bible: Biblical Precedent, Colonialism and the Erasure of Memory. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-317-54464-7.
- Masalha, Nur (2007). The Bible and Zionism: Invented Traditions, Archaeology and Post-Colonialism in Palestine-Israel. Zed Books. ISBN 978-1-84277-761-9.
- Shamir, Ronen (2000). The Colonies of Law: Colonialism, Zionism and Law in Early Mandate Palestine. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-63183-9.
And, more broadly, here are some books about Israel/Palestine that mention colonialism in their titles:
- Zureik, Elia T. (2023). The Palestinians in Israel: A Study in Internal Colonialism. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-1-000-85711-5.
- Greenstein, Ran (2022). Anti-Colonial Resistance in South Africa and Israel/Palestine: Identity, Nationalism, and Race. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-0-429-67075-6.
- Rabinovich, Silvana (2022). Biblical Figures in Israel's Colonial Political Theology. Springer Nature. ISBN 978-3-031-03822-8.
- Todorova, Teodora (2021). Decolonial Solidarity in Palestine-Israel: Settler Colonialism and Resistance from Within. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 978-1-78699-642-8.
- Gowans, Stephen (2019). Israel, a Beachhead in the Middle East: From European Colony to US Power Projection Platform. Baraka Books. ISBN 978-1-77186-183-0.
- Shihade, Magid (2011). Not Just a Soccer Game: Colonialism and Conflict among Palestinians in Israel. Syracuse University Press. ISBN 978-0-8156-5111-6.
Seems WP:DUE to me. Levivich ( talk) 19:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Jeff Halper is an anti-Zionist activist, a supporter of BDS and not a historian.
- Nur Masalha, who for some reason you chose to mention twice, is a Palestinian anti-Zionist.
- Ronen Shamir is a far-left anti-Zionist BDS supporter, and also not a historian.
- Pluto Press, which published Halper's book, is self described as "radical", and was kicked out of its relationship with the University of Michigan because it does not peer review its publications. Zed Books, who published Masalha, is also described as "radical" by multiple sources. You are literally advocating for views of radical presses and activists who are opposed to Zionism to be in the lead of this former featured article - perhaps as far from WP:DUE as one can imagine.
- Relying on these sources for the lead in
Zionism is about as compelling as relying on Tucker Carlson's Ship of Fools: How a Selfish Ruling Class Is Bringing America to the Brink of Revolution in an article about the
Ruling class, or Ann Coulter's Demonic: How the Liberal Mob Is Endangering America in
Liberalism. I think you are actually making my point that this is a radical , non-mainstream view, or else you'd be able to come up with examples from non-partisan historians.
Kentucky Rain24 (
talk) 20:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- I listed Masalha twice because he wrote two modern books about Zionism that have colonialism in the title. (You realize this list was compiled by searching book titles for "Zionism" and "colonialism" and variations, right?) Because
reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective
( WP:BIASEDSOURCES), your whole argument about partisan historians is moot. BTW, have you considered that anti-Zionism is the mainstream view, in the same way that anti-colonialism and anti-terrorism are mainstream views? Anyway, I look forward to reviewing your (or anyone's) list of non-partisan modern books about Zionism. Levivich ( talk) 20:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC)- If Masalha had written 5000 books with that word in its title published by a radical press, would that make the argument more compelling? It's still just one person, who is an ideologue opposed to Zionism.
- Sources do not need to be neutral, but our presentation of view points does. And if this is the viewpoint anti-Zionists, it may belong in the article body, in a section describing the views of opponents or critics of Zionism, but no way it belongs in the defintion of Zionism as the 2nd or 3rd lead sentence.
- By way of analogy, or comparison - Marx wrote quite a few books with "Capitalism" in the title, but we don't use his views on Capitalism in the lead paragraph of
Capitalism - we mention his views in the body.
Kentucky Rain24 (
talk) 21:30, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Still looking for any alternative views, tho, seems to be a shortage of those. Until we see them, then the sourced views are NPOV.
Selfstudier (
talk) 21:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- The alternative view is what was in the article for years, before the recent POV-push: "Zionism is a nationalist movement that emerged in the 19th century to enable the establishment of a homeland for the Jewish people in Palestine, a region roughly corresponding to the Land of Israel in Jewish tradition".
- Should I compile a list of books with both Zionism and Jewish in the title?
Kentucky Rain24 (
talk) 21:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
-
WP:NPOV doesn't mean neutral between anti-Zionism and pro-Zionism, it means
representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic
. "Proportionately" meansin proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources
( WP:DUE). So if the mainstream view is that Zionism was colonialism or colonization, then that's what Wikipedia's going to say in WP:WIKIVOICE. And if the mainstream view is that Zionism's colonial character was/is a significant aspect of Zionism, then that's what Wikipedia's going to say in the lead. - And I'm not sure why you'd compile a list of books about Zionism with Jewish in the title, since this article already says "Jewish" in the lead.
- To Self's point, though, as much fun as this back-and-forth is, your arguments are easily contradicted by quoting from Wikipedia policy pages, so unless your next reply is a list of modern books about Zionism, you're wasting your time.
- BTW, of course our article about
Capitalism mentions Marx's views in the lead: it links to
Capitalist mode of production (Marxist theory). (It also mentions the views of Engels, linking to
state capitalism.) The reason why? Because the mainstream view is that those are significant aspects of capitalism.
Levivich (
talk) 21:48, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- If the mainstream view is that Zionism was colonialism or colonization, you'd be able to produce books by Zionists or "neutral" authors saying that, instead of the list of anti-Zionists ideologues you compiled.
- Do you seriously not see the difference between linking to the Marxist theory of production (through a pipe that says y"The Industrial Revolution of the 18th century established capitalism as a dominant mode of production,") and saying "Capitalism is a system that alienates the masses" or "Capitalism will eventually destroy itself", per Marx, in the 2nd sentence of the lead?
Kentucky Rain24 (
talk) 22:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Good catch -- the lead of
capitalism didn't mention any of the criticisms of capitalism, and so was not in line with
WP:NPOV (I fixed it).
If the mainstream view is that Zionism was colonialism or colonization, you'd be able to produce books by Zionists ...
, lol, there are lots of examples of Zionists saying Zionism is colonialism. After all, they gave their organizations names like Jewish Colonisation Association and Palestine Jewish Colonization Association, and their bank was called the Jewish Colonial Trust. Do you want me to quote from Herzl's diary as well? Again, I look forward to reviewing your list of modern books about Zionism by "neutral" authors. Levivich ( talk) 22:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)- Again, there are multiple meaning of colonization - the one meant by Zionists naming their organizations "colonial association" is similar to the meaning of "colonisation of Mars" - we are going to create new communities - colonies - in the new land.
- And if you wanted to do something similar to what you just did in
Capitalism here - add a paragraph at the end of the lead describing the views of anti-Zionists , and saying that they see it a a colonial movement, that would be fine.
Kentucky Rain24 (
talk) 22:22, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Do you have a source (preferably about Zionism) that talks about these supposed multiple meanings of "colonization"? (Also, seriously man, Palestine is not another planet or a "new land," it was already inhabited, unlike Mars. As far as we know.) Or, for the third time, do you have any sources of what you call "neutral" or "non-partisan" modern books about Zionism?
Levivich (
talk) 22:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Are you deliberately being obtuse? I already addressed you Mars complaint, and I understand why it irks you - because it precisely shows that the world "colonization" is commonly used to refer to a situation where no one is exploited, contrary to the POV that you desperately want to push into this article.
Kentucky Rain24 (
talk) 22:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- The point is that it's actually a bad analogy because there were people there. The analogy doesn't work. In any case I don't see any work referring to the colonization of palestine as the "non-negative" kind of colonization which you are referring to, if there is indeed such a concept outside the context of uninhabited areas. DMH223344 ( talk) 23:17, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- ...and also unless you have a source making this distinction between Zionist/Martian colonialism and other kinds of colonialism, it's
WP:OR anyway.
Levivich (
talk) 23:36, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Original research refers to article content, not to page discussions.
- Perhaps this point sailed over your head, but the Mars example is precisely one case of the multiple meanings of colonialism you asked for, made glaringly obvious by the fact that there were no other people there to exploit.
- But if you want other examples, you can look at the German Templer colonies in Palestine. Somehow I don't see a similar determination to call the
Templer movement a "colonial project".
Kentucky Rain24 (
talk) 23:47, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- We are talking about article content :-) So no, we don't write article content based on WP:OR, such as an editor's opinion that Zionist/Templer/Martian colonization is different from other types of colonization. BTW, you know the Templer article talks about colonies, right? Like at
Templer#Templer colonies. If you're just objecting to "colonial project" and not to other forms of the word (e.g. colony, colonization, colonial, etc.), then we're done here, because this article doesn't say "colonial project" anymore.
Levivich (
talk) 00:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- No we are not. I am not suggesting we write anything like "there are multiple meaning of colonization" in the article, whcih would be impermissible OR. I am just explaining why we shouldn't write 'Zionism is a colonial project" in the article, and giving my reasoning, which is perfectly acceptable.
- And yes of course I know the Templer article talks about colonies- that is precisely the point! That's the reason I brought it up, as another example of the use of 'colonization' (alongside the Martian one) which does not imply a 'colonial project' predicated on exploitation of inferior cultures. The Templers established colonies, but there are no POV-pushers seeking to call the Templer movement a "colonial project" (in the first paragraph of the lead of the Templer article, no less!) - which is just another example of how people can talk about colonies, about establishing colonies, and even describing their inhabitants as "colonists", without coming to the conclusion that they all belonged to a "colonial project".
- Similarly, this article can say that Zionists established colonies, it can say they called their organizations "The Colonial Trust" etc.. - but just like the Templer article doesn't call it a colonial project or a movement founded to colonize Palestine in the lead, so should this article avoid that.
Kentucky Rain24 (
talk) 00:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- I completely agree that the colonization of an empty land, such as Mars, does not involve exploitation of inferior cultures. What I am saying in response is: the colonization of Palestine is not analogous to the colonization of Mars because Palestine was not an empty land like Mars. The colonization of Palestine involved the exploitation of cultures viewed as inferior by the colonists, which is why "colonization" is a perfectly apt description of Zionism.
- The reason this Wikipedia article should say that Zionism was a movement founded to colonize Palestine in the lead is because Zionism was a movement founded to colonize Palestine. From the quote of Labor Zionist historian Shlomo Ben-Ami, below, "Zionism was also a movement of conquest, colonisation and settlement in the service of a just and righteous but also self-indulgent national cause. An enterprise of national liberation and human emancipation that was forced to use the tools of colonial penetration ...".
- Because the sources say Zionism was a colonial enterprise, literally the words "colonization" and "enterprise" are in that quote, and because what Ben-Ami is conveying is the mainstream view of Zionism, this Wikipedia article should say the same thing. Because, as Ben-Ami writes, Zionism "was a schizophrenic movement, which suffered from an irreconcilable incongruity between its liberating message and the offensive practices it used to advance it," equating Zionism's "homeland" ("liberating") message and it's colonialism ("offensive practices"), and because that's the mainstream view, this Wikipedia should also equate Zionism's "homeland" message with it's colonialist practices. In other words, if we say in the lead that Zionism was a movement to establish a Jewish homeland in Palestine, for
WP:NPOV reasons, we must also say that it was a colonial movement. A colonial enterprise. Or a colonial project, if you will. If you won't, there are other variations that would be fine. What's not fine is omitting the colonial part.
Levivich (
talk) 01:05, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- Did the Templer colonies involve the exploitation of cultures viewed as inferior by the colonists?
Kentucky Rain24 (
talk) 01:08, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- How the hell should I know?
Levivich (
talk) 01:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- You can read the article about them in this encyclopedia, or elsewhere. I'll wait. Kentucky Rain24 ( talk) 01:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- How the hell should I know?
- Did the Templer colonies involve the exploitation of cultures viewed as inferior by the colonists?
Kentucky Rain24 (
talk) 01:08, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- We are talking about article content :-) So no, we don't write article content based on WP:OR, such as an editor's opinion that Zionist/Templer/Martian colonization is different from other types of colonization. BTW, you know the Templer article talks about colonies, right? Like at
Templer#Templer colonies. If you're just objecting to "colonial project" and not to other forms of the word (e.g. colony, colonization, colonial, etc.), then we're done here, because this article doesn't say "colonial project" anymore.
Levivich (
talk) 00:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- Are you deliberately being obtuse? I already addressed you Mars complaint, and I understand why it irks you - because it precisely shows that the world "colonization" is commonly used to refer to a situation where no one is exploited, contrary to the POV that you desperately want to push into this article.
Kentucky Rain24 (
talk) 22:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Do you have a source (preferably about Zionism) that talks about these supposed multiple meanings of "colonization"? (Also, seriously man, Palestine is not another planet or a "new land," it was already inhabited, unlike Mars. As far as we know.) Or, for the third time, do you have any sources of what you call "neutral" or "non-partisan" modern books about Zionism?
Levivich (
talk) 22:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- From Shlomo Ben-Ami, who is of course a zionist:
DMH223344 ( talk) 22:50, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Zionism was also a movement of conquest, colonisation and settlementin the service of a just and righteous but also self-indulgent nationalcause. An enterprise of national liberation and human emancipation thatwas forced to use the tools of colonial penetration, it was a schizophrenicmovement, which suffered from an irreconcilable incongruity between itsliberating message and the offensive practices it used to advance it. Thecultivation of a righteous self-image and the ethos of the few against themany, the heroic David facing the brutal, bestial Arab Goliath, was oneway Zionism pretended to reconcile its contradictions.
- Good catch -- the lead of
capitalism didn't mention any of the criticisms of capitalism, and so was not in line with
WP:NPOV (I fixed it).
-
WP:NPOV doesn't mean neutral between anti-Zionism and pro-Zionism, it means
- Still looking for any alternative views, tho, seems to be a shortage of those. Until we see them, then the sourced views are NPOV.
Selfstudier (
talk) 21:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- I listed Masalha twice because he wrote two modern books about Zionism that have colonialism in the title. (You realize this list was compiled by searching book titles for "Zionism" and "colonialism" and variations, right?) Because
- It does indeed seem like we are in agreement that "colonialism" is the right word to use. Should we now open up a discussion about the use of "colonial project" in the lead?
DMH223344 (
talk) 02:58, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- From the conclusion of Righteous Victims:
Zionism was a colonizing and expansionist ideology and movement.
- From Ben-Ami (page 3 of his book):
Zionism was also a movement of conquest, colonisation and settlement in the service of a just and righteous but also self-indulgent national cause.
- From Anita Shapira (the conclusion of Land and Power):
One of its (presumably singular) characteristic features stemmed from the fact that it was a national liberation movement that was destined to function as a movement promoting settlement in a country of colonization. This incongruity between the liberating and progressive message internally and the aggressive message externally acted as a central factor in the shaping of self-images and norms—and, in the end, also patterns of action—in the Zionist movement. Zionist psychology was molded by the conflicting parameters of a national liberation movement and a movement of European colonization in a Middle Eastern country.The Zionist movement was a decided latecomer on the colonial scene: Movements of colonization by Europeans were common up to the late nineteenth century.
- All three of these historians are Zionist, and Shapira herself is a traditionalist historian, no less. Of course plenty of non-zionist historians also describe Zionism in similar terms. The word choice here is "movement" rather than "project", but I don't think there is actually a difference between the two in this context. DMH223344 ( talk) 05:52, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
To whom does the pronoun "he" refer in this paragraph, Ha'am or Herzl? The name should be used to avoid the ambiguity.
"Starting early on, Zionism had its critics, the cultural Zionist Ahad Ha'am in the early 20th century wrote that there was no creativity in Herzl's Zionist movement, and that its culture was European and specifically German. He viewed the movement as depicting Jews as simple transmitters of imperialist European culture." 69.166.116.114 ( talk) 02:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
@ Zero0000, can you explain why you had removed the quote "It has also been described as Israel's national or state ideology. [1]"?
I don't necessarily disagree with a rephrasing or elaboration, or perhaps using a better source. But I wanted to understand why you removed the quote. DMH223344 ( talk) 15:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- I can't speak for Zero but that sentence appears rather redundant (and simplistic) given the preceding one?
Selfstudier (
talk) 15:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Simplistic (and also vague) I agree. Although I think it contrasts with the previous sentence which says "development and protection", so I disagree that it's redundant. "State ideology" suggests a much larger role (which I think is more accurate than just "development and protection"). DMH223344 ( talk) 15:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Categories:
- B-Class vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia vital articles in Society and social sciences
- B-Class level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles in Society and social sciences
- B-Class vital articles in Society and social sciences
- B-Class Israel-related articles
- Top-importance Israel-related articles
- WikiProject Israel articles
- B-Class Jewish history-related articles
- Top-importance Jewish history-related articles
- WikiProject Jewish history articles
- B-Class Judaism articles
- Top-importance Judaism articles
- B-Class Religion articles
- Top-importance Religion articles
- WikiProject Religion articles
- B-Class politics articles
- Mid-importance politics articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- B-Class Conservatism articles
- Low-importance Conservatism articles
- WikiProject Conservatism articles
- B-Class Palestine-related articles
- Top-importance Palestine-related articles
- WikiProject Palestine articles
- B-Class International relations articles
- High-importance International relations articles
- WikiProject International relations articles
- Wikipedia articles that use American English
- Wikipedia former featured articles
- Old requests for peer review
- Wikipedia controversial topics