Talk:Zionism

Lead

I have removed recent edition [1] of pappe to the lead though Pappe view might notable currently without attribution and proper context of other views it WP:NPOV violation.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 06:29, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I previously reverted the content on the basis that the material appears to be RS and this shouldn't be edit warred over. However, viewed as content, the text in question does seem to be rather rhetorically-charged, and its presence in the lede smells NPOV. Alexbrn (talk) 07:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

In fact, Pappe is already mentioned twice in the proper place.--MelissaLond (talk) 07:08, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The content certainly shouldn't be in the lead but it should have been moved to the "proper place" and attributed rather than deleted. I assume someone will do that at some point without violating WP:1RR. If not, I will do it. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:21, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The article already has "Ilan Pappe argued that Zionism results in ethnic cleansing.[86]" ... does it really need more?

The material that was removed says "Zionism emerged in the late 19th century in central and eastern Europe as a national revival movement and soon after this most leaders of the movement associated this with the colonization of Palestine. According to Zionist thinking Palestine was occupied by strangers." It isn't about ethnic cleansing. It's about the history of Zionism. The first sentence is a broad statement about it's history and might even be suitable for the lead or somewhere else. It's not controversial. Of course Zionism became about the colonization of Palestine. Settlements were often called colonies without anyone being concerned about the word at that time. The second sentence is about the attitude of (some) Zionists towards the locals, which I also don't think is controversial, although it could do with further details as statements like "Zionists thought X" are always going to be an oversimplification. I can't think of any reason, aside from wanting to rewrite history, to exclude this material. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, MelissaLond is almost certainly a sockpuppet of AndresHerutJaim. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Isn't Pappe regarded as an extreme anti-Zionist commentator (so my wife tells me; I know little of this topic)? - his views certainly seem pungently expressed and so smell to me like the kind of things which need to be treated consensually and carefully given the controversial nature of this topic. Transposing extreme commentators' views into the article (from whatever "side") wouldn't strike me as a good way forward ... Alexbrn (talk) 10:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, he's less extreme in his views than many editors in the topic area in my experience. :) He's not a commentator, he's an academic. See Ilan Pappé. He's been discussed at RSN several times. See here for example. Unfortunately the discussions are always disrupted by nationalists and sockpuppets as is almost everything in the topic area. I really don't see a problem with this material. The first sentence could have been written by any historian. The second probably needs attribution to Pappe and expansion from other sources to give a broadly overview. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah, so this is one of those articles is it? ;-) Got a few of those on my watchlist ...

(After again talking to my wife) I'm not sure that Pappe's wording is so neutral as to be used without care. For example he says "colonization"; but wouldn't people "from the other side" say that was a loaded/odd word, and ask what was the new place was a colony of? So perhaps one way forward here would be ask: what information is the article missing that you want to include? Is there a way to include it with more temperate wording? Alexbrn (talk) 10:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't see these words as particularly problematic. Being concerned about the word colonization is just revisionism in my view. Zionists like Ze'ev Jabotinsky used it quite happily. See The Iron Wall for example (Iron Wall (essay)). That's what it was, colonization of "a land without a people for a people without a land" for some, not colonialism by a nation state. It's a simple fact that Zionism became about the colonization of Palestine to establish a Jewish homeland. And regarding Palestinians as "strangers", again, not controversial, that is still the case for some, see "Some ministers have blatantly described Palestinians as 'strangers to this land" in Robert I. Rotberg's Israeli And Palestinian Narratives of Conflict: History's Double Helix. It's also not just some Zionists or the State of Israel that treated Palestinians as strangers in their land but that isn't relevant to this article. As for what should be included, I think the lead should include a summary statement functionally equivalent to Pappe's about how Zionism became about establishing Jewish colonies in Palestine and the colonization of Palestine. The lead shouldn't just present the Zionist narrative that it was the "return of Jews to Israel". It should describe what actually happened according to historians. The history is covered in the body of the article in the Zionism#History section from "In the 19th century, a current in Judaism supporting a return to Zion grew in popularity..." onwards so it should be summarized in the lead. Something should be included about the attitudes of Zionists towards the "native population" to quote Jabotinsky, including what Pappe has written, but not just Pappe as I'm sure there were a wide variety of views...not in the lead though. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Is there some centre ground between "the rightful return of the Jews to their homeland" and "genocidal colonization" (not exactly the terms in play, but you get the gist)? "settlement" would strike me as a less rhetorically leveraged word than colonization. Looking at the text in dispute, it reads: Zionism emerged in the late 19th century in central and eastern Europe as a national revival movement and soon after this most leaders of the movement associated this with the colonization of Palestine. According to Zionist thinking Palestine was occupied by strangers. I think the sentiment of the first sentence seems reasonable (if sourced) but the word "colonization" - as I've said - strikes me a problematic. Just doing a quick Google book search I find this "In Israeli historiography, 1882 is considered the year in which the Zionist settlement in Palestine began" [2], which seems more like the sort of thing that might go down better. As for the second sentence, it strikes me that "Zionist thinking" is, at the very least, going to be a contested/tricky topic ... one that I personally wouldn't try and nail down or adduce in a lede. Alexbrn (talk) 11:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, the middle way is the kind of approach I can understand. Settlement and colonization are both fine for me, both terms are used interchangeably in this context I think. I must admit though, the word colonization means colonization to me i.e. nothing to get excited about, and definitely not to be confused with colonialism which is certainly a rhetorically leveraged word. I guess anything about "Zionist thinking" concerning the people already living in Palestine probably needs hammering out on the talk page with a variety of sources before it goes in the article. I'm not sure where it would go either, perhaps the "Particularities of Zionist beliefs" section or maybe in the history section. Anyway, no rush. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I think this discussion is a bit off-topic. What should be decided as far as I can tell, is whether Pappe is a reliable source for those two sentences. If yes, there is no problem with those sentences, if no then the sentences should be left out. If there are other sources that are reliable for a conflicting or substantially alternative statement, then both views should be presented with attribution. FWIW, I don't see why Pappe (as an academic with experience in the field) wouldn't be reliable for those two sentences. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 14:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Pappe view is one of the many it doesn't belong in current form in the WP:LEAD.Much like opinion of Karsh or Morris.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 16:24, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

If this is so, then you're right, but we need sources to establish that. If there are no sources that say Pappe's view isn't universally shared, we're probably to assume it is. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 17:42, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, if you read the text of the "Basle program", which was adopted by the first Zionist Congress in 1897, number one on the list of things to do is promote Jewish colonization of Palestine, so I would be very surprised if you could find a historian that would say colonization of Palestine was not a primary concern of the movement at that time. Dlv999 (talk) 19:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Citing that source in the lead in addition to (or even instead of) Pappe could be a good idea. --Dailycare (talk) 20:27, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Googling around, the word that has been translated (from that Congress resolution) as colonization is besiedlung – which seems to have rather a less precise focus than that, meaning e.g. "inhabit", "populate" and "settle" as well as "colonize"; it doesn't appear to have the same meaning "colonize" (with all its negative resonances) has in modern times. Many of the translations seem to pick "settle". See here for the evidence. Alexbrn (talk) 20:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but I think concerns over the word colonization are probably inappropriate and serve no purpose. It was colonization and sources naturally refer to it that way. The New Jewish Encyclopedia uses it in their entry on Zionism.(p. 536). Settle/colonize, makes no difference to me, but I am concerned when words that are used without any problems by quality sources are altered in Wikipedia based on transformation rules that are opaque/subjective and absent from the sources themselves. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

There are already statement about colonization in the lead I don't think we need further emphasis on that.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 07:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

There is no statement about colonization in the lead. There is a reference to colonialism. Not the same thing. Colonization is a description of what happened. It is a neutral fact. The view that it was colonialist or colonialism is an opinion about the objectives and nature of the colonization. Colonization is like saying a company carried out exploration in country X. Colonialist/colonialism is like saying that the exploration amounted to exploitation of country X. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to re-add the uncontroversial details with extra sourcing. No one has produced any sources that contradict the statement that Zionism emerged in Central and Eastern Europe in the late 19th Century and that early on in the movement Jewish colonization of Palestine became a primary goal of the movement. These are basic (sourced) facts about the topic, that should be in the lead, if any editor wants to dispute any of the details please provide RS to support your position. Dlv999 (talk) 11:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I wanted to say that in the lead I think the word order is wrong at the very end "and alleged racism and violence against Palestinians." In my view it should be "violence against Palestinians and alleged racism." The reason is that violence against Palestinians is a fact and is not alleged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.173.162.144 (talk) 10:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

History

The first two paragraphs of this section are almost entirely unsourced. The sources that are cited do not discuss or even mention the topic of this article, nor can I find any sources in the parent article relating this material to the topic of this article. Dlv999 (talk) 08:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Long record of Russian Genocide

I read this sentence in the article:

"The Russian Empire, with its long record of state organized genocide and ethnic cleansing ("pogroms") was widely regarded as the historic enemy of the Jewish people."

Russian pogroms began in 1881 in retribution for the assassination of Alexander II. Prior to 1881, the relationship between Russians and Jews can fairly be said to be distant, since 95% of the Jewish population was relegated to the Pale of Settlement, with the remaining 5% (about 300,000 people) constituting an elite that was permitted to live in Russia proper.

I hope that the author might re-consider the phrasing, I would suggest stating that the Russian government engaged in segregation and denial of equal opportunity to the Jews in the Pale of Settlement, in a manner roughly equivalent to African Americans under Jim Crow. I don't think that charges of genocide, or equating the term "pogrom" with the highly charged term "ethnic cleansing" are supported by the facts of history.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.219.127.28 (talk) 20:38, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Correcting opinions in Wikipedia's voice

I removed the last part (italics) of this sentence yesterday: "Some criticisms of Zionism specifically identify Judaism's notion of the "chosen people" as the source of racism in Zionism,[99] despite that being a religious concept unrelated to Zionism" - partly because it at that time was unsourced, but mainly because I saw it as polemic: Correcting an opinion in Wikipedia's voice. It's now been reinserted with source. I think it should be rewritten if not removed, maybe also writing "claim" instead of identify in the first part of the sentence. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 07:44, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I've removed it for now since zionism-israel.com doesn't qualify as an RS (and changed identify to claim). I assume the content can probably be replaced with a WP:V-compliant source but it has to avoid WP:SYNTH i.e. the source needs to make this "religious concept unrelated to Zionism" point to refute/challenge the claims. It can't be a Wikipedia editor combining multiple sources to refute/challenge the claims. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I just changed the source. It's from a book, and it refutes very clearly the claim that religious concept of "God's chosen people" is related to Zionism.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 08:11, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I still don't think it's right to correct arguments/opinions etc. in Wikipedia's voice. The correction should be attributed to someone (individuals, "most scholars" or similar). Even if a professor claimed the globe was square, I don't think it would be correct Wikipedia style to write a sentence saying "Professor Wright claims the globe is square, allthough it is round." Iselilja (talk) 08:26, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

The source looks okay and avoids synth. I think Iselilja is right about the narrative voice and attribution. Also, don't forget, this article is covered by WP:1RR and your edit is a technical violation, not that I care because your edit was constructive, but someone might. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:37, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Iranit Greenburg's edit is inconsistent with WP:NPOV. We have several academic sources that say one thing that is attributed "Some criticisms of Zionism claim", then we have another source introduced by IG that contradicts the first set of sources, but instead of being attributed it is used for facts in the wikipedia voice. SH, you may say this edit is "constructive", but if you have an editor in the topic area who consistently ignores the 1rr rules and also ignores core policies of the encyclopedia then that is a big problem, because editors who do follow policy will not be able to fix the problems created by the editor as they are constrained by the 1rr regulations. Dlv999 (talk) 09:07, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Div999 is correct about the edit. An opinion attributed to one source can't be refuted in Wikipedia's voice but only in the voice of another source. I'm not too sure that the source is reliable either. The quoted words "the biblical concept of 'Chosen People' is part of Judaism; Zionism has nothing to do with it" are actually bizarre; scores of Zionist theorists will be very surprised to learn that Zionism has nothing to do with Judaism. Zero^talk 09:28, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

@Dlv999, I don't disagree with anything you have said there but my remarks were deliberately limited in scope to this article with respect to IranitGreenberg's editing and I think the NPOV issues can easily be resolved here. What's more important I think is for IranitGreenberg to curb their enthusiasm a bit, be able to see the NPOV violation, understand the role of attribution and when not to use Wikipedia's neutral unattributed narrative voice. I could say a lot more about their editing in general in the topic area, which appears rather aggressive and inconsistent with WP:NOTADVOCATE, but it seems to take time for some people to learn that Wikipedia policy is more important here than their personal beliefs as you know. They haven't been editing for very long. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:46, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Changes in the lead and elsewhere

I made the changes for the following reasons: These are perceptions or opinions, not indisputable facts (just like 'what they see as an abandoned homeland'): Israel is not an Apartheid country and many Arab refugees in 1948 fled, weren't expelled. So these things are views or opinions. On the other hand, I restored relevant historic episodes in the "History" section (1920, 1921, 1929 riots were very important) and restored criticism of anti-Zionism in the proper place per NPOV, since anti-Zionist views are included in the lead, despite they belong to the "criticism" or "anti-Zionism" sections or articles... although perhaps the entire anti-Zionist/pro-Zionist views should be removed from the lead, they are already in the proper section and in other articles, but removing only one of them is flagrant POV.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 01:07, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

"Israel is not an Apartheid country". POV, I feel! Hendrik Verwoerd, the initiator of apartheid, is said to have agreed that Israel was an apartheid state.Arrivisto (talk) 17:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

No, it's the only democracy in the region. The antisemitic Afrikaner racist said that in 1961, precisely in retaliation for an Israeli vote against South African apartheid at the United Nations. Being insulted by Verwoerd should be a compliment for Israel, nothing more.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 03:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

The pre-Mandela apartheid South Africa was also a democracy, albeit one where only whites could vote. Israel is a democracy whose similarly skewed suffrage denies residency (let alone a vote) to displaced Palestinians, while granting both benefits to any non-Israeli who can call himself a Jew. Arabs are not integrated into Israeli society, but are marginalised into "Bantustans" within Israel's borders. Meanwhile Israel continues (in the face of universal global criticism) to build illegal settlements in the West Bank. Not so different from apartheid! Arrivisto (talk) 12:01, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

1) Jews building homes in their native homeland cannot possibly be illegal, despite what anti-Semitic UN says.

2) Whites were colonist foreigners in South Africa, but Jews are the natives in Israel. The colonist foreigners are the illegal settlers from Arabia.

Anti-Zionism=Anti-Semitism meme inserted into the lead

I would argue that this is undue and not suitable for inclusion in the lead. If it remains in the lead I will insist that counter arguments to the claim are also included per RS. For instance notable liberal Zionist Peter Beinhart quotes Foxman: "most of the current attacks on Israel and Zionism are not, at bottom, about policies and conduct of a particular nation-state. They are about Jews... When other countries and people pursue policies that are similar (or far worse than) those of Israel, do the critics condemn them? If so, do they condemn them with the same fervor as they condemn Israel? If not, it's hard to deny that anti-Antisemitism explains the discrepancy."

To which Beinhart responds: In their effort to inoculate Israeli policy from criticisms, American Jewish organizations have stretched anti-Antisemitism's definition to the point of absurdity. And many in the organized Jewish world know it. "on a Daily basis", notes Jodi Ochstein, who worked in the ADL's Washington office from 2006 to 2010, "people thought it [the charge of anti-Antisemitism] was over the top. It would be one of those eye -rolling days; you were embarrassed to be working there on those days." But rarely does embarrassment translate into empathy for the people unfairly charged with one of the most damning epithets in contemporary America. (Beinhart 2012 pp55-58 [3]).

It is wp:undue in the lead.

This article concerns Zionism. So we can give the mind of pro-Zionists and anti-Zionists but not in more some particular critics against anti-Zionist. That would be a basic case of unaccepable pov-pushing given it discredits these critics (true or not).

Pluto2012 (talk) 11:05, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

By the way, this is alos WP:UNDUE : "Defenders of Zionism say it is a national movement for the repatriation of a dispersed socio-religious group to what they see as an abandoned homeland.[5][6][7] Critics of Zionism say it is a colonialist[8] or racist[9] ideology. Reasons for opposing Zionism are varied and include the confiscation of land from indigenous Palestinians and their ensuing expulsions, racism and violence against Palestinians, and a refutation of the Zionist claim of a Jewish scriptural entitlement to the Holy Land.[10][11][12]"

Zionism is an historical movement. No need to talk about current controversies that are more linked to the current I-P conflict than to the debate at the time even if there were already opposition at the time. Pluto2012 (talk) 11:12, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Your version gives anti-Zionist opinions much more prominence over pro-Zionist views. Let me give you an example: anti-Zionist words and accusations have 349 characters against 160 characters of pro-Zionist opinions. It's clear POV and undue weight. However, I do believe the entire paragraph should be removed, since the lead must be only a descriptive text, while the negative criticism belongs to "anti-Zionism" section (in addition to an entire article about it).

Pro-Zionist views:

Defenders of Zionism say it is a national movement for the repatriation of a dispersed socio-religious group to what they see as an abandoned homeland.[5][6][7]

Anti-Zionist views:

Critics of Zionism say it is a colonialist[8] or racist[9] ideology. Reasons for opposing Zionism are varied and include the confiscation of land from indigenous Palestinians and their ensuing expulsions, racism and violence against Palestinians, and a refutation of the Zionist claim of a Jewish scriptural entitlement to the Holy Land.[10][11][12]

I just wrote a more balanced text. But if you want to remove the entire paragraph, I have no problem with it.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 12:18, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the current version (after new revisions) is fine. It's one line about the position of zionist defenders and an about equally long sentence about criticims, and I think those two sentences adequately summarize the main positions. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 13:55, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I think that when counting characters (if that's seen as useful) should include characters in the first lead paragraph that portray Zionism in a rather positive light. Or, should we lace that too with "balancing" refutations? --Dailycare (talk) 17:14, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so. The first lead paragraph is an historical description (information), not a subjective point of view or opinion.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 17:37, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Agree with IranitGreenberg. The edits made by Pluto violated 1rr on 12/05/2013 so I asked him for immediate self revert.--Tritomex (talk) 05:53, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I really wonder which ones ? Pluto2012 (talk) 06:02, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

1. [4]
2. [5]
3. [6]--Tritomex (talk) 06:40, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Massive Islamic propaganda in introduction

In the introduction, it states Arabs the "indigenous population of Palestine." This is Islamic propaganda because the indigenous population of Palestine are Jews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Revelberle (talk • contribs) 04:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I also wonder why there isn't any criticism of Palestinian nationalism in that article's introduction. Hmmm, it seems the rumors that Wikipedia is a far-left/Islamist site are true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Revelberle (talk • contribs) 04:34, 13 May 2013 (UTC)