Talk:Zionism/Archive 31

Archive 25

←

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Semi-protected edit request

For the intro sentence, where it mentions “the ethnocultural movement”, please replace the with “an” as there have been multiple ethnocultural movements throughout the 19th century (Zionism is just one of them). Also for the portion and “aimed for the establishment of a homeland for the Jewish people through the colonization of Palestine”, please replace “and” with “which”. It would make more grammatical sense to add either that or which for this portion. 2600:100C:A218:9A7B:E879:81B4:EADF:A345 (talk) 00:30, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

 Partly done changed "the" to "an" since it wasn't the only one, but I'm not sure about "and" or "which," someone else can decide that. Levivich (talk) 01:05, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Enjoy

Weaponizing Wikipedia against Israel,

• 'A powerful group of editors is hijacking Wikipedia, pushing pro-palestinian propaganda, erasing key facts about hamas, and reshaping the narrative around israel with alarming influence… We are urging all of our members in Israel to join the session to learn how to edit Wikipedia. We are going to work to plan a session for our American base as well.'
• 'Only last night I attended Wikipedia 101 Zoom meeting where the editing structure was explained, and how to also ascend the ranks of Wikipedia editors to trusted user.'

Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:05, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

As with most of such recent pieces the "research" is utterly laughable. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 13:12, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

As just one example Wikipedia's main article on Hamas omits mention that Hamas' 1988 charter calls for jihad and the destruction of Israel., when in fact the 1988 charter is explicitly mentioned in the third paragraph of the lede, and in the subsection Antisemitism of the section Policies towards Israel and Palestine discusses the call for jihad against Jews and explicitly states how this has been described as genocidal. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 13:17, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I wonder if the usual suspects are concerned with this off-wiki canvassing and coordination. Simonm223 (talk) 13:43, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

This is not a wp:soapbox. Slatersteven (talk) 13:18, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

This is not soapboxing. This is the kind of information required to make a decision. The decision will be whether to request that the talk page be locked down to disconnect it from what is happening externally and restrict it to extended confirmed editors. It may become necessary to do that at some point given the amount of chatter about this article in the bullshitosphere and the endless supply of people with an elevated susceptibility to misinformation. Fortunately, we are only dealing with people. Maybe next year it will be AI agents. Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Which is why I raised it at ANI, do we need to take preventative steps? Slatersteven (talk) 13:38, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I guess we just need to wait and see whether anyone can get their influence operations-game together. So far, although there have been major spikes in pageviews that presumably track various external things, the onsite effects have been fairly mild. Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:57, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

• I would agree that a systemic bias is present, but it is mostly due to the bias existing in mainstream external sources on these subjects. Let's say that the coverage by CNN is very biased (I believe it is), and we are using CNN publications... This is not a problem per WP:NPOV assuming that the external bias is faithfully reflected on our pages. My very best wishes (talk) 01:49, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 December 2024 (2)

Change:

"Zionists wanted to create a Jewish state in Palestine with as much land, as many Jews, and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible."

To:

"Zionism as a political ideology is wide and varied; liberal Zionism is non-exclusionary to Palestinian Arabs living among and within the land of Israel. Kahanist Zionism seeks to create a Jewish state in Palestine absent of Palestinian Arabs."

Carlo Strenger, Liberal Zionism Archived April 2, 2015, at the Wayback Machine Haaretz (May 26, 2010) Carlo Strenger, Israel today: a society without a center Archived July 2, 2017, at the Wayback Machine Haaretz (March 7, 2015) Manna 2022, pp. 2 Hsilvers (talk) 06:23, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done There is ongoing discussion on this in multiple sections above. Please thoroughly read all current discussion sections before making an edit request. Note that you may not participate in such discussions until you have made 500 edits over a period of 30 days. Valereee (talk) 16:19, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Antisemetism

Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This page is atrocious, and opinionated not factual. Totally undermines the reliability and validity of Wikipedia. Shame. 2601:281:8580:1690:DC4E:59CE:F5D:38D4 (talk) 00:36, 7 December 2024 (UTC) Maybe telling us exactly what's wrong with it so it can be changed would be a better idea than commenting on how biased the article is without providing details. ZZZ'S 00:41, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Proposal to Revise the Lead of the Zionism Article

Critique of the Current Lead

The current lead of the Zionism article is not fully neutral. While it addresses criticisms and controversies, it neglects to adequately summarize Zionism's historical and ideological foundations. As per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, the lead should provide a concise and balanced overview of the topic, reserving detailed criticisms for the body of the article.

Specifically:

Lack of Context on Zionism's Origins: The lead does not provide sufficient historical background on late 19th-century European nationalism and antisemitism, which catalyzed the Zionist movement. For instance, Theodor Herzl's foundational text, Der Judenstaat (1896), framed Zionism as a response to Jewish persecution and a vision for self-determination.

Source: Herzl, Theodor. Der Judenstaat. (Full text available)

Source: Laqueur, Walter. A History of Zionism: From the French Revolution to the Establishment of the State of Israel. Schocken Books, 2003.

Omission of Zionism's Ideological Diversity: The lead fails to acknowledge the diversity of thought within the movement, such as Political Zionism, Cultural Zionism, and Religious Zionism. Figures like Ahad Ha’am emphasized cultural and spiritual revival rather than a purely political state.

Source: Hertzberg, Arthur, ed. The Zionist Idea: A Historical Analysis and Reader. Jewish Publication Society, 1997.

Source: Avineri, Shlomo. Herzl’s Vision: Theodor Herzl and the Foundation of the Jewish State. BlueBridge, 2014.

Overemphasis on Controversies: The current lead gives disproportionate weight to criticisms of Zionism. While these are important, they should not dominate the introduction. Instead, the lead should summarize Zionism’s goals, historical development, and major achievements, reserving critiques for later sections.

Source: Penslar, Derek J. Zionism and Technocracy: The Engineering of Jewish Settlement in Palestine, 1870–1918. Indiana University Press, 1991.

Source: Khalidi, Rashid. The Iron Cage: The Story of the Palestinian Struggle for Statehood. Beacon Press, 2006.

Proposed Revision

I propose the following revision for the lead:

Zionism is a nationalist and political movement advocating for the establishment of a Jewish homeland in the historic Land of Israel. Emerging in the late 19th century in response to rising antisemitism and European nationalism, Zionism was formalized by Theodor Herzl, whose work Der Judenstaat (1896) laid the groundwork for its political objectives. The movement evolved to encompass diverse ideological streams, including political, cultural, and religious Zionism, and culminated in the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948. While Zionism achieved its primary goal of a Jewish state, it remains a subject of debate, particularly concerning its impact on Palestinian Arabs and ongoing regional conflicts.

This revised lead provides:

A clear summary of Zionism’s goals and historical roots. Recognition of its diverse ideologies and streams. A neutral mention of controversies, suitable for an introduction.

Supporting Sources

Herzl, Theodor. Der Judenstaat. (Link to text)

Hertzberg, Arthur. The Zionist Idea: A Historical Analysis and Reader.

Laqueur, Walter. A History of Zionism: From the French Revolution to the Establishment of the State of Israel .

Avineri, Shlomo. Herzl’s Vision: Theodor Herzl and the Foundation of the Jewish State.

Khalidi, Rashid. The Iron Cage: The Story of the Palestinian Struggle for Statehood.

I invite feedback and discussion on this proposal to ensure the article meets Wikipedia's neutrality and reliability standards.

Michael Boutboul (talk) 11:17, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

I suggest you contribute on the talk page sections already opened on this topic. The lead is supposed to be a summary of the article body not a summary of your personal opinion. Selfstudier (talk) 11:31, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, indeed the lead is supposed to be a summary of the body and the current is far to reflect the body. The topic is controversial and must reflect sources, against zionism but also Zionist, and the lead does not while the body does. Michael Boutboul (talk) 13:55, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

But the lead already does summarize the origins of Zionism in the second paragraph. DMH223344 (talk) 17:57, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

The current second para seems overly wordy and detailed for a lead, but in any event this proposed first paragraph gives a very sharp, uncontroversial concise overview that can then be unpacked in later, less concise paragraphs. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:10, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Moral support. While I don't see that there will be consensus here today for this change, I think the proposal has a legitimate point. Currently, when I read the lead of Zionism, I read the lead in a lot of matter-of-fact, in fact extensive detail. When any detail is smoothed over to make things flow better, we encounter a dispute. At any rate, the lead is very detailed and it also doesn't really say that Zionism is quite a controversial topic with a lot of debate. That's an important part of Zionism. Not only is Zionism a highly fragmented and multifaceted group of related nationalisms, it is also the subject of heated debate with a range of vitriolic characters at the fringes as well as a heated dispute in the mainstream. An encyclopedia article about Zionism should not engage in this. It should be a very flat description of the major disputes and the major players, events, and conceptual groupings. Andre🚐 23:42, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your answer and moral support, I did not expect to have a consensus with my proposal but to start a debate on this lead. Would you mind drafting something? Michael Boutboul (talk) 21:18, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

What, in your perspective, (or preferably if you can provide sources) are the aspects of Zionism that are highly debated? The lead does currently mention that supporters of zionism see it as a national liberation movement and that antizionists see it as a settler colonial movement. DMH223344 (talk) 22:24, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

For example, in Land and Power: The Zionist Resort to Force, 1881-1948 by Shapira 1999, we're talking about the history of attitudes toward power and the use of armed force within the Zionist movement—from an early period in which most leaders espoused an ideal of peaceful settlement in Palestine, to the acceptance of force as a legitimate tool for achieving a sovereign Jewish state. It was not agreed by all Zionists that it was necessary not to be peaceful. Andre🚐 01:24, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

The idea of the "defensive ethos" is an interesting one which might warrant more attention in the body at least.

p. 126:

Was it possible to settle Palestine peacefully, or was a violent clash between Jews and Arabs inevita­ ble? In the 1920s, all were apparently in agreement that it was too early to arrive at any conclusive answer. For the moment, the necessity of the hour was to push ahead with settlement of the land; and the explanatory line adopted had to be based on principles of the defensive ethos. There were those who honestly believed its principles, while others accepted only a portion of its elements. And there were some who apparently viewed it as, at best, an expedient propaganda line and an important instrument for education.

Shapira's book is full of discussion about a peaceful resolution being preferable to some in the Zionist movement, but not achievable on practical grounds (also noted by Flapan). As she says in her conclusion "At what point did the leadership become aware that there were fallacies in the logical structure of the defensive ethos and that the Zionist movement would not be able to avoid a head-on collision with the Arab national movement?... From the very inception of Jewish colonization in Palestine, the course of ultimate confrontation was inherent in the situation." It's interesting to follow Ben-Gurion on this point; taken from his biography (Teveth):

A careful comparison of Ben-Gurion’s public and private positions leads inexorably to the conclusion that this twenty-year denial of the conflict was a calculated tactic, born of pragmatism rather than profundity of conviction. The idea that Jews and Arabs could reconcile their differences … was a delaying tactic. Once the Yishuv had gained strength, Ben-Gurion abandoned it. This belief in a compromise solution … was also a tactic, designed to win continued British support for Zionism.

As a final note, Shapira also discusses the influence of Stalinist Russia on the Yishuv:

In the final analysis, these expressed a tendency to respond with force to clashes with Arabs. That activism was not the product of Palestinian realities, but had been imported from the Diaspora. The young had not learned national pride in Palestine but had come there as an expression of revolt against the humiliation of the Jew. That activism derived its basic values from Russian revolutionary ide­ ology and practice. Those values included a refusal to acquiesce in accepting the established order of things, a faith in the ability of a small avant-garde to change the course of history, a conviction that a historical mission liberates its bearers from the restrictions of simple morality in the name of higher justice, and a legitimation of the use of force for the sake of generating the desired revolutionary change. They believed that every revolutionary ideology harbors within it the legitimation of the use of violence, since the end justifies the means. Moreover, in every revolution, the active core constitutes a minority within a majority. This scheme represented an acknowledgement of the inevitability of violence.

DMH223344 (talk) 02:46, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree Shapira's argument about the inevitability of violence in Zionism is worth expanding in the body, along with Slater 2020's counter argument that Zionism didn't require violence to achieve its goals. I'm sure there are others, too (some, eg Morris, already in the article). Levivich (talk) 08:01, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Support expansion of this in body not in lead BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:11, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Why are we using Theodor Herzl as a source here? He is considered the founding figure of Zionism, not exactly a third-party source known for fact-checking. And he died back in 1904, so we can not use him as a source for the last 120 years of bloodshed. Dimadick (talk) 23:58, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Yup, it's a primary source, and doesn't help us figure out how to summarize secondary sources in the article. Levivich (talk) 23:21, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

The proposed content works without citing the primary source. Secondary sources are pretty unanimous in saying Herzl and his text provided the foundational ideas. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:14, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

The sources listed talk about colonization "in Palestine," but the proposed rewrite removes all mention of colonization and changes "Palestine" to "Land of Israel". That's less WP:NPOV, not more, just by the suggested sources themselves--without getting into why that's not a good set of sources upon which to base the lead.

I don't think those sources or others say Herzl "formalized" Zionism, probably more like "organized" or "promoted". He died within the first decade of Zionism's existence, and some (many? most?) of the formal institutions of Zionism, like Histadrut and Haganah, were developed after he died.

I question whether the sources describe the various types of Zionism as "diverse" or the exact opposite--homogenous--or somewhere in the middle, e.g. more alike than different. And also whether the movement "evolved to encompass diverse ideological streams," or whether the sources say it went in exactly the opposite direction: a bunch of different strands of Jewish nationalism coalesced into one thing, Political Zionism. I'm not sure whether the sources would list "political, cultural, and religious" Zionism as the three main types, or whether it would be "Liberal," "Labor" and "Revisionist" (or just one main type: political, or something else).

The last line is particularly whitewashy. The sources accuse Zionism of ethnic cleansing, genocide, and war crimes. Such allegations (or widely-agreed facts) are not accurately summarized as a "debate" about Zionism's "impact on Palestinian Arab's."

For these reasons, I don't think the proposed lead is an improvement. Levivich (talk) 04:54, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailed response. I appreciate the opportunity to engage in this discussion and clarify my rationale for the proposed changes. Let me address each of your points in turn:

1. "The proposed rewrite removes all mention of colonization and changes 'Palestine' to 'Land of Israel.'"

• Clarification: The intention behind using "Land of Israel" instead of "Palestine" is to reflect terminology used within Zionist ideology itself, particularly in historical texts and by figures like Theodor Herzl. However, I understand that this may appear less neutral, and I am open to retaining "Palestine" in the lead, as it is geographically and historically accurate.
• On "colonization": The term "colonization" is used in some sources, but it is not universally accepted or uncontested. Zionism was not purely a colonial movement; it was also a nationalist and self-determination movement responding to Jewish persecution. While colonization was an element of how Jewish settlement occurred, the lead should aim for a balanced description that includes the motivations and historical ties behind these efforts. For example, we could state: "through settlement efforts in Palestine," which reflects the action without the pejorative connotations.

----

2. "Herzl 'formalized' Zionism vs. 'organized' or 'promoted.'"

• Clarification: You’re correct that Herzl did not "formalize" Zionism in its entirety, as many institutions developed after his death. A more accurate phrasing could be: "Herzl organized the First Zionist Congress and laid the groundwork for Zionism as a political movement." This acknowledges his central role while recognizing the ongoing development of Zionism after his death.
• Supporting Sources: Herzl’s role as a key figure in the early Zionist movement is discussed in works like Shlomo Avineri’s Herzl’s Vision, which describes Herzl as the "founder of political Zionism" for his organizational and ideological contributions.

----

3. "Are the types of Zionism described as 'diverse' or the opposite?"

• Clarification: Zionism encompassed a range of ideological streams, which were diverse in approach but united by the goal of establishing a Jewish homeland. The lead could clarify this by stating: "Zionism encompassed various ideological approaches, including political, cultural, and religious Zionism, which differed in their priorities and methods but shared the common goal of Jewish self-determination." This phrasing acknowledges diversity while emphasizing shared objectives.
• On alternative categorizations (e.g., Liberal, Labor, Revisionist): These categorizations are more specific to political Zionism in the 20th century and are better suited to the body of the article. The lead should reflect broader distinctions (e.g., political, cultural, religious) that capture the ideological diversity of early Zionism.
• Supporting Sources: Arthur Hertzberg’s The Zionist Idea and Walter Laqueur’s A History of Zionism describe the multifaceted nature of Zionism, including cultural and religious aspects that preceded the Labor-Revisionist divide.

----

4. "The last line is whitewashy regarding allegations of ethnic cleansing, genocide, and war crimes."

• Clarification: The intention of the last line was not to downplay these allegations but to summarize a broader debate about Zionism's legacy. To address your concern, the lead could more explicitly mention these criticisms, e.g., "While some view Zionism as a legitimate nationalist movement, critics have accused it of contributing to the displacement of Palestinians and violations of human rights, including allegations of ethnic cleansing and colonialism." This phrasing acknowledges the severity of the allegations without overshadowing the entire lead with one perspective.
• On the "debate" framing: It is fair to revise the phrasing to avoid glossing over serious criticisms. However, the lead should also avoid adopting language that presumes consensus on these accusations, as there is substantial disagreement in scholarship and public discourse.
• Supporting Sources: Benny Morris’s Righteous Victims and Rashid Khalidi’s The Iron Cage discuss these allegations and the broader context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

----

5. "Sources and neutrality"

• Clarification: The sources cited in the proposal are widely respected in Zionism studies (e.g., Laqueur, Avineri, Hertzberg). However, I acknowledge that additional sources representing critical perspectives (e.g., Khalidi, Pappé) could be incorporated to ensure balance. The lead should aim to reflect the body of the article by presenting both the achievements and criticisms of Zionism in a neutral and proportional manner.

----

Proposed Revision Based on Feedback:

Taking your points into account, here is a revised draft of the lead:

Zionism is a nationalist movement advocating for the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine, also referred to as the Land of Israel in Jewish tradition. Emerging in Europe in the late 19th century in response to antisemitism and the challenges of assimilation, Zionism was formalized as a political movement by Theodor Herzl, who convened the First Zionist Congress in 1897. The movement encompassed diverse ideological streams, including political, cultural, and religious Zionism, which shared the common goal of Jewish self-determination.

Zionist efforts led to significant waves of Jewish immigration to Palestine and culminated in the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948. While supporters view Zionism as a legitimate nationalist movement addressing Jewish persecution, critics have accused it of colonialism, the displacement of Palestinians, and human rights violations, including allegations of ethnic cleansing. These debates remain central to discussions about Zionism's legacy and its impact on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

----This version addresses your concerns about colonization, Herzl’s role, ideological diversity, and criticism, while striving for a neutral and balanced tone. Let me know your thoughts! Michael Boutboul (talk) 21:38, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Just on the first point, "colonization", emphasis mine:

• Herzl, Der Judenstaat: The Jewish Company ... has other than purely colonial tasks. ... our male colonists ... our colonists will be peaceably inclined ... the Company's colonists ... more prosperous colonists ... the peaceable voluntary departure of colonists ... I don't understand using Der Judenstaat to argue in favor of including "Land of Israel" and excluding "colonization", when Der Judenstaat does not have the word "Israel" in it, but does have the words "colonial" and "colonists."
• Laqueur, p. xxvi: ... up to 1917 the history of the Zionist movement presents no particular problems; it is the story of a somewhat eccentric movement of young idealists who met every other year at a congress and espoused various political, financial, cultural, and colonising activities.
• Hertzberg is a collection of primary-source documents by Zionists, not a history book about Zionism. It has very little historical analysis in it, mostly it's the reproduction of Zionist leaders' works. But in the introduction, p. 16, Hertzberg writes: ... what is classical in Zionism-its eschatological purpose; and what is modern-the necessarily contemporary tools of political effort, colonization, and the definition of Jewry as a nation ...
• Avineri (2008) is a biography of Herzl, not a book about Zionism, but he has lots of quotes of Herzl referring to Jewish colony, Zion colonies, plus discussion of early Zionist institutions like the Jewish Colonization Association and the Jewish Colonial Trust.
• Khalidi, p. xxxiv: This enterprise was and is colonial in terms of its relationship to the indigenous Arab population of Palestine ... Zionism also served as the national movement of the nascent Israeli polity being constructed at their expense. There is no reason why both positions cannot be true: there are multiple examples of national movements, indeed nations, that were colonial in their origins ...
• Morris (2001), p. 13 Muslim attitudes to some degree affected the Zionist colonists in Palestine. They drove the colonists, at least during the early decades of Zionism ..., pp. 38-39 These Jews were not colonists in the usual sense of sons or agents of an imperial mother country, projecting its power beyond the seas and exploiting Third World natural resources. But the settlements of the First Aliyah were still colonial, with white Europeans living amid and employing a mass of relatively impoverished natives., or p. 61 On the most basic level, Jewish colonization meant expropriation and displacement., there's more like this in that book.

I do not think removing the word "colonization" makes the lead "a balanced description," but rather an unbalanced one that omits this key point that is in all these sources ... the sources you are bringing to this discussion, without considering other (possibly better) sources. Indeed, "colonization" was a compromise over just saying "colonial enterprise", which is what the lead used to say, and the more I read sources about this, the more I think that's probably what the lead should say. Levivich (talk) 23:17, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I would like to address your points in detail and explain why I initially proposed modifying the language, while also clarifying that my intent is not to erase the idea of "colonization" but rather to ensure a balanced and nuanced presentation of the term in the lead.

----

1. "Colonization" in Early Zionist Writings

You raise a valid point that early Zionist writings, including Der Judenstaat and other foundational texts, explicitly use terms like "colonists" and "colonial." Herzl himself employed this language to describe the practical settlement efforts required to establish a Jewish homeland. I do not dispute that "colonization" was part of early Zionist discourse, but I think the current lead risks oversimplifying the term without sufficient context.

• Clarification: When Herzl and early Zionist leaders used terms like "colonization," they often did so within the framework of contemporary European nationalist and developmental discourse, not necessarily as a reflection of imperialist ambitions akin to European colonial powers. For example, Herzl’s vision focused on peaceful settlement, voluntary agreements, and the development of land, rather than the exploitation of resources or subjugation of indigenous populations, which are central to many definitions of colonialism.
• Suggested Compromise: Instead of removing "colonization," the lead could clarify the term’s specific context in Zionist thought. For example:
  • "Zionism is a nationalist movement that emerged in Europe in the late 19th century, advocating for the establishment of a homeland for the Jewish people in Palestine through organized settlement and colonization efforts." This phrasing acknowledges the use of "colonization" while avoiding connotations that might inaccurately frame Zionism solely as a colonial enterprise in the imperialist sense.

----

2. Secondary Sources on Colonization

You provide excellent examples from secondary sources, including Laqueur, Khalidi, and Morris, which highlight the colonial aspects of Zionist activities, particularly in their relationship to the indigenous Palestinian Arab population. I do not contest the inclusion of this perspective in the article, but I would argue that these sources also reflect complexity and nuance, which should be conveyed in the lead.

• Morris: While Morris acknowledges the colonial elements of Zionist settlement (e.g., "Jewish colonization meant expropriation and displacement"), he also distinguishes it from traditional European colonialism, noting that Zionism was not backed by an imperial mother country and was primarily driven by a national liberation ethos.
• Khalidi: Khalidi’s point that Zionism can simultaneously be a national movement and a colonial enterprise is a nuanced position that should inform the lead. This dual characterization could be reflected in a balanced lead, such as:
  • "Zionism has been described as both a national liberation movement for Jewish self-determination and a colonial enterprise that displaced the indigenous Arab population."

----

3. Current Language in the Lead

The current lead uses "colonization" without sufficient explanation, which could mislead readers into equating Zionism entirely with European-style colonialism. This interpretation is incomplete because Zionism also arose from unique historical circumstances, including widespread Jewish persecution, statelessness, and a historical connection to the land.

• Proposed Revision: The lead could expand on the term to capture the complexity of Zionism’s settlement efforts. For example:
  • "Zionism’s efforts to establish a homeland in Palestine involved organized settlement and land acquisition, often described as colonization. These activities were influenced by European nationalist and colonial models but were also shaped by the unique context of Jewish statelessness and historical ties to the region."

This phrasing acknowledges the colonial aspect while providing context that distinguishes Zionism from traditional colonial enterprises.

----

4. Balance and Neutrality

Your point about the importance of retaining "colonization" for balance is well-taken. My initial concern was that the term, as currently presented, risks oversimplifying Zionism’s goals and methods. However, I agree that removing it entirely would also create an imbalance. The key is to provide a nuanced explanation that reflects both the colonial aspects of Zionism and its unique characteristics as a national liberation movement.

• Addressing Neutrality: Including multiple perspectives from sources like Khalidi, Morris, Laqueur, and Avineri can ensure the lead captures the full spectrum of interpretations. For example:
  • "Zionism is a nationalist movement that emerged in Europe in the late 19th century, advocating for the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Its efforts involved colonization and settlement activities, which have been characterized as both a national liberation movement and a colonial enterprise, particularly in their impact on the indigenous Arab population."

----

5. Use of Herzl as a Source

You correctly note that Herzl’s Der Judenstaat frequently uses "colonization" and related terms. While I referenced Herzl to provide historical context for early Zionist ideas, I agree that his writings should not be the sole basis for evaluating Zionism’s methods or impact. Secondary analyses, such as those by Avineri and Laqueur, are essential for contextualizing Herzl’s language and understanding its limitations.

----

Conclusion

Thank you again for your thorough analysis and sources. I propose that we retain "colonization" in the lead but expand its context to reflect the nuances discussed here. By doing so, we can provide a balanced and accurate description that captures both the colonial and national liberation aspects of Zionism, as supported by the sources you and I have referenced. Michael Boutboul (talk) 20:02, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Have you read the article by the way?

Colonization is used by RS and we are using it here to reflect that. DMH223344 (talk) 20:46, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

On the third point, where does Hertzberg's book or Laqueur's book say that Zionism's "nature" is "multifaceted", or that Zionism "encompassed various ideological approaches", or anything like that? I'm not finding it. Levivich (talk) 00:12, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm sure Engel 2013 says something like that. Andre🚐 01:23, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't think so. Engel 2013 doesn't seem to mention cultural Zionism at all. It barely make any mention of religious Zionism, except when discussing the post-1967 party. It talks about Labour, Revisionist, General Zionism (as do the other sources), but (like the other sources) describes those as parties, factions, etc. I don't see anything even close to saying there was a diverse, multifaceted, or wide range of Zionist ideologies, etc., just different parties/factions that had control at various times. Maybe I missed it. Levivich (talk) 01:42, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

One of the ways I know this not an accurate way to summarize Zionism, is that every source I've ever read talks about "the Zionist movement," and never "Zionist movements," or any plural like that. It's always one movement, one organization, one ideology, one group. With infighting, yes, but it's not a collection of ideologies, it's one thing. Levivich (talk) 01:44, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it's not conventional to refer to "Zionisms," plural, but they do talk about "streams of Zionism" in Conforti and Schlinder, and left-and right-wing factions within the Zionist movement. It's more than one group but it is generally referred to as a single ideology or movement, but I wouldn't say one organization. There are many Zionist groups and organizations. Engel 2013 discusses a wide variety of programs, ideas, aims, goals, and tactics. Andre🚐 02:51, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Can this or that group of Zionist disagree with something, sure, but the WZO/Basel->Jerusalem program seems pretty monolithic to me. For example see American Zionist Movement "All Zionists agree on the set of ideals and principles known as the Jerusalem Program." The philosophy is clearly expressed in the Nation State law as a legalized Jewish state within Israel and settlement as a national ideal. Selfstudier (talk) 11:18, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, this is backed up by the most thorough discussion of this topic that I can think of (anecdotal, I know), the one in Penslar 2023, where he spends about 30 pages of Chapter 1 on "Taxonomy of Zionism, Old and New" (pp. 36-64). He lays out 4 "types" of Zionism from pre-WWI: Hibat Tsion, Political Zionism, Practical Zionism, and Cultural Zionism; and 4 "forms" of Zionism during Mandatory Palestine: Labor Zionism, Revisionist Zionism, General Zionism, and Religious Zionism. He writes (p. 41):

With the exception of Religious Zionism, ­these forms of pre-1948 Zionism have ­either declined into insignificance or mutated into new forms that are substantively dif­fer­ent from their pre­de­ces­sors. Accordingly, we need more capacious and inclusive categories of Zionist sensibility to include aspects of the Zionist proj­ect from its origins to our own day. Recently, some writers attempted to provide ­these categories ...

He then talks about Chaim Gans's alternative classification and 21st-century Liberal Zionism, and Gil Troy's alternative classifications. Then he lays out his own suggested new classifications of "vari­ous types of Zionism".

Note he calls these "types," "forms," "categories of Zionist sensibility" and "aspects of the Zionist project"; he does not call these "diverse," "multifaceted," or say they are "various ideologies," a "wide variety," or anything like that. He writes (p. 43):

The continued application of classic Zionist categories is problematic not only ­because change over time calls their relevance into question. ­Those in the past who identified with one Zionist camp or another ­were unaware of or reluctant to admit commonalities between them and their mutual influence. This was particularly the case for Labor and Revisionist Zionism during the heyday of their internecine strug­gles during the 1930s and 1940s. The social and economic ideologies of the two movements differed profoundly, but their goals and methods diverged more in style than substance. During the Israeli state’s first de­cades, ­Labor Zionism was still identified with the “Left” and Revisionism with the “Right,” but later in the twentieth ­century, with the triumph of neoliberal economic doctrines the only substantive difference between Left and Right remained the fate of the Occupied Territories and questions of Palestinian statehood. Even then, all but the most extreme positions within the Zionist Left maintained the primacy of Jewish claims to a state within most of historic Palestine and ­were wary of, if not downright hostile to, extensive intermixing with the Arab population. Divisions within Zionism between the Left and Right are real yet fluid and epiphenomenal.

This isn't accurately summarized by saying that Zionism evolved into diverse ideological streams. They're not that diverse, according to Penslar, and as time went on, he says there were fewer, not more, ideological differences. Levivich (talk) 18:51, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

That is all great stuff that we should use, but there are other contrasting viewpoints or more nuance to bear. For example Engel 2013,

p.49

the road to the Jewish state was hardly as smooth as Herzl imagined. Even after his appearance, the Zionist movement remained a coalition of disparate groups and constituencies, ideologically fragmented and numerically insignificant. In fact it incorporated three distinct streams – one concerned primarily with settling Palestine, a second with readjusting political relations between Jews and non-Jews, and a third with creating a Jewish ‘national’ culture – and it was not yet clear that all three could work together productively within a single organization,

p.61

In 1905 the Seventh Zionist Congress shelved the matter permanently. Only then did the three principal streams in the Zionist movement – centred respectively about settlement of Palestine, reconstructing political relations between Jews and non-Jews, and creating a secular Jewish culture in Hebrew – come firmly together. However, some of the movement’s greatest stalwarts, for whom political reconstruction eclipsed the other two, broke permanently with the Organization over this issue.

p.184-185, though not directly related to the above 2, talks about the disagreement about the relationship with the diaspora in more recent times: The complication of Israel–diaspora relations and the intensification of multifaceted divisions within the Jewish world since the 1980s have beset the.. which ends with:

disagreement on fundamentals has been a constant feature of Zionist history, and there is no reason to expect that it will be any less so in the future.

I believe there's also relevant material in Stanislawski talking about the liberalism of Zionism: there was a distinct liberal utopian streak in Herzl’s vision of the Jews’ state: most famously, in Der Judenstaat he called for the institution of a seven-hour workday,, as well as touching on the controversial debates of Zionism: This raises one of the most controversial issues that have dominated debates over Zionism from Herzl’s day to the present. And page 31:

Herzl’s success at the First Zionist Congress did not resolve the fundamental ideological divides within the Zionist movement. Thus, there were at least three organized groupings within the Zionist movement that differed from Herzl’s strictly “political” Zionism: First, Ahad Ha’am and his followers soon organized themselves as the “Democratic Faction,” which insisted on a cultural revolution within the Jewish community based on secular Hebrew culture, but also distrusted Herzl personally and opposed what they considered his near-dictatorial control of the movement. Secondly, already in 1899, the first socialist Zionist group was founded, which soon divided into many different groups and subgroups, often based on crucial differences such as acceptance of Marxian or so-called “utopian” socialism, support of Yiddish as well as Hebrew as the national language(s) of the Jewish people, and on solutions to the “Arab problem” in Palestine, and also—like so many other movements on the left—on far subtler disagreements in the theory of socialism. And finally, in 1902 the Mizrachi movement was founded to put forward a synthesis between Orthodox Judaism and Zionism.

Andre🚐 19:24, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

So what is your suggestion? To mention pre 1905 streams of zionism in the lead? These quotes dont tell me that Zionism had a "wide variety" of ideological streams. DMH223344 (talk) 19:45, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Right: Engel AFAIK doesn't say these three streams are "diverse" or "wide variety" or anything similar, and note he says the three streams converged into one early in Zionist history (1905)--this contradicts the idea that Zionism evolved into diverse ideologies, and supports the idea that it went the other way: what started as multiple streams came "firmly together" by 1905, according to Engel. This is similar to what Penslar said about post-1948: less diversity, not more, as time goes on. Levivich (talk) 19:48, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

He says "disparate groups and constituencies, ideologically fragmented" which certainly covers "diverse," does it not? I am not arguing that there wasn't less diversity over time: there certainly was particularly with the decline of the left-wing and the rise of revivisionist Zionism. But our article doesn't focus exclusively on the modern day. Andre🚐 19:55, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

No, it does not cover "diverse." We shouldn't use a characterization like "diverse" unless the sources use that same characterization. "Disparate" does not mean "wikt:diverse." "Different" does not mean "diverse." The question to ask yourself is why aren't they using the word "diverse"? Levivich (talk) 19:58, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

"Disparate" alone doesn't mean diverse, but "disparate...ideologically fragmented" certainly does. Or "disagreement on fundamentals." That says diversity of ideology. Anyway, it's not true. Engel says this on p.55: The young Zionist movement already incorporated diverse opinions about its purpose and methods, Andre🚐 20:00, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

"Opinions about its purpose and methods" are not "ideologies." And he said they were already incorporated into Zionism early on. No objection to saying that Zionism had internal divisions, that early on there were diverse opinions about its purpose and methods, which ultimately converged around the turn of the 20th century, as Engel says, at which point there were differences in style not substance, which also disappeared (or mutated) by 1948, as Penslar says. Levivich (talk) 20:03, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I'd say opinions about a purpose or a method is fairly close to a working example of ideological praxis. And I don't think mutation = disappear. I think Penslar is right to point out the debates became less relevant, certainly the left-wing barely exists today and has had a steady decline, but it was not gone by 1948. Andre🚐 20:04, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I think most sources are saying it's a diverse movement or a diverse ideology, rather than that it is constituted of diverse movements or diverse ideologies. E.g. Britannica: "Despite the diversity of Zionism as an ideology, which includes iterations that consider the rights of Palestinians to be fundamental to Zionism’s success". Or Seidler 2012 "the conflicting founding designs, which express the formative ideological background underlying the very idea of the State of Israel". Boyarin, in a section called "Zionisms and the state" says "What we call Zionism, despite the existence of a World Zionist Organization and then a Zionst state, is in fact a catchall for numerous, often contradictory currents of thought.

But some do talk about multiple Zionisms. Colin Shindler in a section called "A Plethora of Zionisms" says "Zionism was never a monolithic movement. It would be more correct to speak of a range of different varieties of Zionism. Herzl's General Zionism immediately began to flow into different ideological streams." Stanlislawski has a chapter called "Socialist and Revisionist Zionisms. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:53, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that is true and a good point which I agree with. Andre🚐 18:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

OK, so now I am back to specifying time periods, there's the history and there's the now and they are nothing like each other. Selfstudier (talk) 18:02, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that's right, and it's important our lead covers both not just one. BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:09, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

First the body should cover both, no? DMH223344 (talk) 19:14, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes of course. Body needs improvement, but they are both in body already no? BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:49, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Zionism today (or even since 67) is not really covered DMH223344 (talk) 14:53, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

The lead should cover the mainstream and possibly mention some notable ideas outside the mainstream (which it currently does). DMH223344 (talk) 19:15, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I am mainly arguing that the lead and the body alike should portray the many inter- or intra-Zionist debates and not portray it as a monolith. I think "disagreement on fundamentals" being a constant feature gets at the variety within Zionism, no? For example, p.180: The religious–secular and the Israel–diaspora fissures continued to widen over the quarter century Reading the article now we'd have little idea of the deep fissures. The quotes I've given support that in the time periods covered in the article's history of Zionism, there was disagreement about various topics, for example, what to do about Palestinians. Andre🚐 19:53, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

The lead and body do this already. The last paragraph of the lead is "The Zionist mainstream has historically included liberal, labor, revisionist, and cultural Zionism, while groups like Brit Shalom and Ihud have been dissident factions within the movement. Differences within the mainstream Zionist groups lie primarily in their presentation and ethos, having in some cases adopted similar strategies to achieve their goals, such as violence or compulsory transfer to deal with the Palestinians." This seems like an accurate summary of, e.g., Engel and Penslar. Levivich (talk) 19:55, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I do not believe "Differences within the mainstream Zionist groups lie primarily in their presentation and ethos" is an accurate statement nor does that appear in Engel or Penslar. Penslar thinks Divisions within Zionism between the Left and Right are real. Andre🚐 19:56, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Divisions within Zionism between the Left and Right are real yet fluid and epiphenomenal., is what Penslar wrote. He also wrote their goals and methods diverged more in style than substance ("more in style than substance" = "wikt:epiphenomenal", aka "Being of secondary consequence to a causal chain of processes, but playing no causal role in the process of interest"). Penslar is saying their differences are real but ever-changing and they didn't much matter (didn't play a causal role in Zionism). Levivich (talk) 20:00, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

He doesn't say they didn't play a causal role. He's saying they're less relevant today than they were in the past. Thus the use of present tense. Andre🚐 20:03, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Secular-religious divide is already discussed in the lead. What in your opinion is missing from the section?

The Zionist mainstream has historically included liberal, labor, revisionist, and cultural Zionism, while groups like Brit Shalom and Ihud have been dissident factions within the movement. Mainstream Zionist groups for the most part differ more in style than substance, having in some cases adopted similar strategies to achieve their goals, such as violence or compulsory transfer to deal with the Palestinians.

It covers that Zionism has a mainstream and has also had dissident factions which were still considered part of the movement. The body does not use a description such as "wide range" or "diverse" to describe Zionist ideology. Whatever new content you are proposing we include should first be incorporated into the body. DMH223344 (talk) 20:31, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Here are the current changes that I think are incremental improvements: [1] Andre🚐 20:32, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

"Modern form"? RS do not use that terminology when talking about the movement that developed in the 19th century. There is no such thing as pre 19th century Zionism. Maybe RS say "protozionist", but they dont say "zionist" to describe such movements.

The comment about why those fleeing russia went to palestine is well sourced, see the body.

I removed the last sentence you added because we should discuss how to represent transfer in the lead. Also, religious zionism is already mentioned (ie not all zionists were secular) and debates about relationship with diaspora does not seem leadworthy DMH223344 (talk) 20:45, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I think something about "modern" belongs in the lead and body. Maybe not that exact wording For example Stanislawski refers to Zionism coming out of "modern Jewish nationalism": Zionists today regard Zionism as a natural continuation of two millennia of Jewish attachment to the Land of Israel,.. a redefinition of Jewishness that resulted from a broader ideological innovation in Jewish history: the creation of modern Jewish nationalism. Indeed, in most ways Zionism followed the common pattern of modern nationalist movements,, ..his version of modern Jewish nationalism was dubbed “spiritual” or “cultural Zionism,” as opposed to “political Zionism.” To understand these terms, we must move beyond the invention of modern Jewish nationalism and its early embodiment in movements such as the Bilu and Lovers of Zion to the creation of the Zionist movement itself. Andre🚐 20:54, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

"modern Jewish nationalism" is fine. I would have suggested to add it to the opening sentence but it is already very long. DMH223344 (talk) 21:37, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

To clarify, I mean adding the word "modern" in the sense of "a modern movement" DMH223344 (talk) 21:38, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

That would be fine with me. Andre🚐 21:38, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Just to note that the lead of the Britannica article (which also uses both Palestine and land of Israel, the latter in quote marks)

"Zionism, Jewish nationalist movement with the goal of the creation and support of a Jewish national state in Palestine, the ancient homeland of the Jews (Hebrew: Eretz Yisraʾel, “the Land of Israel”)." BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:32, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

It probably makes sense to expand somewhere in the body about Ahad Ha'am's criticism of Herzl's Zionism (ie "Jewish state" vs "state of the Jews"). DMH223344 (talk) 19:47, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Taking into account criticism on colonization and the debate on zionisms, I suggest the following lead :

Zionism is a nationalist movement that emerged in Europe in the late 19th century, advocating for the establishment of a homeland for the Jewish people in Palestine, also referred to as the Land of Israel in Jewish tradition. The movement arose in response to antisemitism, Jewish persecution, and the challenges of assimilation in Europe, drawing on both historical connections to the region and contemporary nationalist and colonial models. Early Zionist leaders, including Theodor Herzl, framed settlement and colonization as central to the movement’s efforts to create a Jewish homeland.

Zionism encompassed distinct ideological streams, including political, cultural, and religious Zionism, which differed in their approaches but shared the common goal of Jewish self-determination. The movement led to significant waves of Jewish immigration to Palestine and the development of Zionist institutions, culminating in the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948. While supporters view Zionism as a legitimate national liberation movement for the Jewish people, critics argue that it contributed to the displacement of Palestinians and ongoing regional conflict. These debates remain central to discussions about Zionism’s legacy and its impact on Israeli-Palestinian relations. Michael Boutboul (talk) 20:05, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Again, I don't think this accurately summarizes the sources. I suggest, for each change you want to make (or start by just picking one change), you quote the sources that say something different than what the article currently says. Levivich (talk) 20:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Penslar 2023 p.91

The Hebraic Zionism of Ahad Ha-Am was noncolonial in that it condemned Jewish sovereign authority in Palestine and displayed little interest in improving the lot of the natives in a Western paternalistic fashion. Yet a passion for Hebraic culture and hawkish political views could easily coexist, as was the case for Joseph Klausner, a scholar of Jewish history and Hebrew literature who during the interwar period was a committed Revisionist Zionist... Of all the varieties of Zionism discussed in the first chapter, Statist Zionism is most clearly linked with colonialism

Andre🚐 21:55, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Do you think there is a compelling reason to discuss Ahad Ha'am's criticism of Zionism in the lead? If so, we should work on the body first, then decide how to incorporate those changes into the lead (if at all). DMH223344 (talk) 17:34, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I'll work on the body when I have some free time and a clear head. But I think the point about the lead is that it should not elide the differences between different schools of Zionist thought. They aren't all violent or colonial. Andre🚐 17:38, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

A link to a relevant article would suffice. Selfstudier (talk) 17:49, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed completely - the lead has improved somewhat, but still makes it sound like all Zionists today support further violence/transfer of Palestinians, rather than simply the continued existence of Israel in a two-state solution. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:54, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I thought this edit was being faithful to the suggestion made by Levivich above, No objection to saying that Zionism had internal divisions, that early on there were diverse opinions about its purpose and methods, which ultimately converged. [2][3] Is the qualifier the issue with that text? Andre🚐 03:53, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

What I said: No objection to saying that Zionism had internal divisions, that early on there were diverse opinions about its purpose and methods, which ultimately converged around the turn of the 20th century, as Engel says, at which point there were differences in style not substance, which also disappeared (or mutated) by 1948, as Penslar says.

What I removed: Zionism had numerous internal debates and divisions, and early on there were diverse opinions about its purposes and methods, which later converged to some extent.

What the lead already says that I didn't remove: The Zionist mainstream has historically included liberal, labor, revisionist, and cultural Zionism, while groups like Brit Shalom and Ihud have been dissident factions within the movement. Mainstream Zionist groups for the most part differ more in style than substance, having in some cases adopted similar strategies to achieve their goals, such as violence or compulsory transfer to deal with the Palestinians.

The sentence I removed said things that I think are contradicted by the sources or are characterizations that aren't in the sources (e.g. "numerous," "to some extent"), and I don't think that sentence adds anything to what's already there. Levivich (talk) 04:24, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I think adding Zionism had internal divisions, that early on there were diverse opinions about its purpose and methods, which ultimately converged adds something that isn't there now. Is there a version of that sentence you'd be comfortable adding? Andre🚐 04:28, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

The problem is that's not in the body. It could be, but it needs to be added, with sources, with the nuance and characterizations used in the sources cited, etc., and then there would be some version of that sentence that should be added to the lead, but I'm not really sure what it is now, without closely examining what multiple sources say about it--not just Engel and Penslar, because everybody who writes an overview of Zionism talks about "types of Zionism," so the question is what do they say exactly? Probably they say the same thing as Engel and Penslar, but maybe not.

BTW I noticed that in some of your recent edits, you changed the article prose but didn't add a source, and while I think everything you added is easily sourced (probably to Penslar or Engel or somebody we've discussed here), I'm not sure if the pre-existing sources in the article source the stuff that you added. Just a heads up, I think you might need to add citations to what you added. Levivich (talk) 04:44, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Good catch, I added the cite to Penslar quote, which is p. 59-60 in the edition I have. Regarding adding some distillation of the material in this section to the body, I will attempt to do that if there is no objection, though not at this very moment. Andre🚐 04:51, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

On the Use of "Colonization" in Zionist History

Many sources explicitly use the term "colonization" when describing Zionist activities, especially in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. However, these same sources often emphasize that Zionist colonization was distinct from European imperialist colonialism. Zionist leaders and organizations framed colonization as a means of fulfilling Jewish self-determination and re-establishing a historical connection to the land, rather than as an imperial venture exploiting local populations for the benefit of a distant mother country.

Here are some relevant sources and how they address "colonization":

1. Theodor Herzl’s Der Judenstaat:
   • Herzl explicitly uses the term "colonists" and "colonization" to describe the practical process of Jewish settlement in Palestine. However, his focus is on peaceful settlement and voluntary agreements.
   • Example Quote: “The Jewish Company ... has other than purely colonial tasks. ... our colonists will be peaceably inclined.”
   • This supports retaining "colonization" in the lead but underscores that early Zionist leaders envisioned it as a developmental and peaceful effort, rather than an imperial project.
2. Walter Laqueur’s A History of Zionism:
   • Laqueur acknowledges the colonial aspects of Zionist activities but distinguishes them from traditional colonial enterprises.
   • Example Quote: “These Jews were not colonists in the usual sense of sons or agents of an imperial mother country ... but the settlements of the First Aliyah were still colonial, with white Europeans living amid and employing a mass of relatively impoverished natives.”
   • This nuanced description suggests that "colonization" was part of Zionist history but needs context to distinguish it from imperialist colonialism.
3. Rashid Khalidi’s The Iron Cage:
   • Khalidi emphasizes the colonial relationship between Zionism and the indigenous Arab population but acknowledges Zionism’s dual character as both a colonial enterprise and a national movement.
   • Example Quote: “This enterprise was and is colonial in terms of its relationship to the indigenous Arab population of Palestine ... Zionism also served as the national movement of the nascent Israeli polity being constructed at their expense.”
   • Khalidi’s position supports including "colonization" in the lead but also highlights the tension between Zionism’s colonial and nationalist dimensions.
4. Benny Morris’s Righteous Victims:
   • Morris discusses Zionist colonization efforts, particularly during the First Aliyah and Second Aliyah periods, but notes that Zionism was not supported by a European imperial power.
   • Example Quote: “Jewish colonization meant expropriation and displacement,” but “these Jews were not colonists in the usual sense of sons or agents of an imperial mother country.”
   • This source supports the use of "colonization" while distinguishing it from traditional colonial enterprises.

So I believe I have now provided all the necessary sources and evidence to substantiate the points raised in our discussion. Michael Boutboul (talk) 21:25, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Might be a good idea to read some of the talk page archives here. Selfstudier (talk) 22:17, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, you don't answer what in my current proposal is not well sourced and explained and what does not make a consensus. The current lead is far to respect Wikipedia requirement : Neutrality, Balance of perspective, speculative assertion, ... Michael Boutboul (talk) 14:51, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Because many of these points have already been discussed and dealt with. If it were as simple as you say, it would have been done already, no? Selfstudier (talk) 14:56, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

It’s as simple as I stated. The current lead is not neutral, and you know it. Please respond to my arguments instead of simply saying 'no, there is no consensus.' There is no consensus on the current lead either, and many people have provided strong arguments. We should work together to create a more balanced lead." Michael Boutboul (talk) 15:32, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

The current lead has consensus, your opinion does not. The need is to demonstrate that the current lead does not have consensus. Selfstudier (talk) 17:33, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

How can you reasonably claim that the current lead has consensus? At least six (and likely many more) editors have requested changes to it, providing valuable arguments. Michael Boutboul (talk) 18:37, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

See the RFC on the question that has just been opened. You may comment there. Selfstudier (talk) 18:58, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

One advantage of Michael B's proposed lead is the removal of the sentence starting "Zionists wanted to create a Jewish state in Palestine... " As Penslar, for example, makes clear, the aspiration for statehood grew slowly and was far from a defining feature of early Zionism, which focused on a home or homeland, as in the wording of the Balfour Declaration. The Jerusalem Program cited by Selfstudier, for instance, was not drafted until 1951, after the state was a reality; the Nation state law, also cited by Selfstudier, is a mere six years old and opposed by many calling themselves Zionist (including nearly half the Knesset). It's telling that the footnote (4) to that paragraph, the quotes that mention the word "state" almost all refer to the 1948+ period. In other words, it's anachronistic. BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:07, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, we need to do a better job of separating the historical stuff. There's the pre-20th century stuff, the 1930s and 1940s, 1948-1967, and 1967-present at the least. Andre🚐 18:14, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

See the new author (section at the bottom, not saying I think this is a best source or anything but at least it's new) "Zionism is a movement that aspired to the creation of a sovereign Jewish state. Having emerged at the end of the 19th century, the Zionist ambition was achieved in 1948 with the founding of the state of Israel. Selfstudier (talk) 18:22, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

And as you already pointed out, Britannica says much the same as do lots and lots of sources. Selfstudier (talk) 18:26, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

That source centres the state, as does Britannica, but also highlights diversity on other questions: "Despite this basic unity of purpose, Zionism was not a monolithic ideology. Factions differed on substantial issues like the rate and implementation of the immigration to Palestine, or even on whether the “Holy Land” should be the site upon which to fulfill the movement’s goals. Cultural Zionism, for example, understood the “Land of Israel” as the irreplaceable spiritual center of Jewish life and Hebrew culture, while Theodor Herzl (1860-1904) and political Zionism focused on securing imperial approval for a territorial grant to the Jewish people." I think we need the maximum broad definition as the opener, and only then say something like that the aspiration for statehood became a central element especially after 1917 BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:57, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

There should probably be a reasonable treatment of Cultural Zionism in the body first, right? Probably a full paragraph would be reasonable. DMH223344 (talk) 14:35, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

That's just not true, the aspiration for a state begins with Herzl and the whole disguised "homeland" version of that aspiration is very well documented, just read the Balfour Declaration article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration#The_%22national_home_for_the_Jewish_people%22_vs._Jewish_state Selfstudier (talk) 15:19, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your support, I am not that familiar with Wikipedia editing, do you know how to come to a consensus to have a more balanced lead with neutral presentation and streamlined focus on key historical point? Should we ask for an arbitration process? Michael Boutboul (talk) 21:54, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

First port of call, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for the boilerplate. All I would say is that, on WP, trying to do everything at once usually doesn't work.Selfstudier (talk) 22:08, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is a dispute exactly, so much as a lack of consensus. I believe three editors argued for a need to change the lead to make it (as we see it) less historically presentist and more neutral, while three editors argued for it to remain as it is, with both groups providing policy-based arguments and sources to back their cases, but neither convincing the other. In such a context, the status quo remains in place, but Michael should feel free to present new arguments or new sources in the future to keep the proposal alive. BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:21, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

It's definitely a dispute and its been running a while now, at least we have one RFC on the go. Selfstudier (talk) 18:22, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

• Shindler 2015: A Plethora of Zionisms. Zionism was never a monolithic movement. It would be more correct to speak of a range of different varieties of Zionism. ... ideological streams. Andre🚐 03:31, 10 December 2024 (UTC)