Talk:Zionism

Role in Arab-Israeli Conflict

This added section appears simply to be taken from only one source (political activist Norman Finkelstein). Even the quotations from Ben-Gurion and Morris are merely taken from Finkelstein and represent his selections and interpretations of their words.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 February 2024

The paragraphs in the Arab Conflict section have been delete and reposted multiple times. The material is disputed and should not be included. The distract from the main purpose of the article. 12.74.53.144 (talk) 20:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Please delete the entire Arab Conflict section. 2601:189:8001:2470:9000:3E32:F731:BD53 (talk) 20:19, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. Feel free to discuss that text here on the talk page but as there is clearly dispute over that text, out of scope for an edit request Cannolis (talk) 23:05, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

POV tag

@Donbodo please explain what about the section "Role in the Arab-Israeli conflict" requires a POV tag. DMH223344 (talk) 15:46, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

It looks like you mentioned in a previous post a concern with over reliance on a single source. DMH223344 (talk) 05:53, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Two sources are currently cited in that section, Morris and Finkelstein. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 07:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

The sources are not cited directly from the sources, but are simply cited from Finkelstein. What is expressed here is only Finkelstein's POV. Don Bodo (talk) 10:00, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I should add that, in a recent live debate on the Lex Fridman podcast, Morris told Finkelstein that he was misconstruing his words. Don Bodo (talk) 10:05, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

The tag has been changed from 'POV' to 'one source'. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 10:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Definition of Zionism

Are there any widespread definitions of Zionism in RS that go beyond the current theoretical scope of "creating and maintaining a Jewish state", i.e. more practical ones relating to its expansionism? Makeandtoss (talk) 12:44, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Another try. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:10, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

There is the description of benny morris: "Zionist ideology and practice were necessarily and elementally expansionist" DMH223344 (talk) 16:14, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Something more factual and less of what would appear as an opinion? Makeandtoss (talk) 20:04, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Are you looking for statements from israeli officials? DMH223344 (talk) 00:06, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

No, but factual encyclopedia style definitions within the scope of it being Israel's national ideology; i.e. expansionist, settler-ist, etc. Makeandtoss (talk) 07:49, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

From Israel Shahak:

Zionism is an ideology. Its political/national form, with which this essay is concerned, is the foundation for the State of Israel’s national character. It dictates much of Israel’s foreign and domestic conduct. In the state’s international policies, Zionism is a major consideration along with the state’s militarism in shaping Israel’s territorial aspirations. In domestic affairs, the state’s “fundamental” or “basic” laws are predicated upon the basic Zionist concept that “the Jewish people” is included in Israel’s nationality constituency.

DMH223344 (talk) 16:34, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Scope of Zionism

How can we say Zionism aims for establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine, when this was clearly not the case for early Zionist thinkers? I mean sure, it has been mainly so, but it would be misleading to include that in the overarching definition. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:45, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on what you mean? In what way was seeking the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine "not the case for early Zionist thinkers"? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 16:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Per body:

“ Throughout the first decade of the Zionist movement, there were several instances where some Zionist figures, including Herzl, supported a Jewish state in places outside Palestine, such as "Uganda" (actually parts of British East Africa today in Kenya), Argentina, Cyprus, Mesopotamia, Mozambique, and the Sinai Peninsula. Theodor Herzl, the founder of political Zionism was initially content with any Jewish self-governed state ”

If the founder of Zionism himself was not sure about choosing Palestine; how can we say that Zionism aimed for establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine? It doesn't make sense, therefore, Zionism should be correctly redefined without relation to Palestine, i.e. seeking the establishment of a Jewish homeland generally. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

We would need to see high quality reliable sources for the proposed changes. It may be the case that there wasn't a single proposal among early Zionist thinkers. Many of them were from Salonica and Ukraine and there was real and serious discussion over the fate of Salonica. It was the "New York of the Ottoman Empire" or the "Jerusalem of the Balkans" — and it is quite disturbing that the memory has been all but been erased from the history.

As for disputing the significance of Palestine as central to the Zionist movement, I don't support changes along these lines. There may have been different or multiple proposals under discussion, and so, I have some doubts about how we are reading Uganda. Was it proposed as an alternative to a Jewish national home in Palestine, or simply a practical proposal for a "temporary refuge" for the Jewish refugees of the pograms, as Al Jazeera and others claim? Ben Azura (talk) 09:41, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

This makes sense but you'll have to show that reliable sources define Zionism in this way, although I suspect RSs define it as this article does and indeed Zion refers to Palestine/Jerusalem.

Herzl was a Zionist in that he supported establishing a Judenstaat in Palestine. He also considered other places since "a major concern and driving reason for considering other territories was the Russian pogroms, in particular the Kishinev massacre, and the resulting need for quick resettlement in a safer place."

If early Zionists such as Herzl were not fully certain or committed to establishing a state in Palestine only, I don't think that means they weren't Zionists at all. The sentence "Throughout the first decade of the Zionist movement, there were several instances where some Zionist figures, including Herzl, supported a Jewish state in places outside Palestine", can be understood as "early Zionists were unsure about the feasibility of establishing a state in Palestine and considered other options for Jewish settlement."

We also have separate articles on Jewish territorialism and proposals for a Jewish state.

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 09:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

@Ben Azura: As @IOHANNVSVERVS: has pointed out, Proposals for a Jewish state article shows that most of them were proposals for a Jewish homeland outside of Palestine, including the Uganda Scheme, which was presented by Theodor himself at the 1903 Sixth Zionist Congress. Obviously this change would require finding what RS; but as an initial observation, doesn't it seem illogical to claim that the founder of Zionism was unZionist? At first glance, wouldn't you agree that it is not so accurate to limit Zionism to Palestine? Makeandtoss (talk) 10:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

"Doesn't it seem illogical to claim that the founder of Zionism was unZionist?"

Imagine a sentence like "early Zionists were not strictly or fully committed to the ideology and considered alternatives."

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 10:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

But they did not consider alternative ideologies; they considered alternative strategies for the same ideology of Zionism-when Zionism is defined broadly as supporting creation of a Jewish homeland. Obviously the fact that alternatives to Palestine can be mentioned in the lede as a summary of the body; but here we are talking about the opening sentence; whether Palestine should be included in it or not. If it should, that risks "de-Zionizing" Herzl. But then again, we should find what RS say about this. My only aim to bringing this up here is to gather the momentum for this research journey. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

"But they did not consider alternative ideologies; they considered alternative strategies for the same ideology of Zionism-when Zionism is defined broadly as supporting creation of a Jewish homeland."

I would rather say that "they considered alternative strategies for the same ideology of supporting the creation of a Jewish state, but had a strong preference for Zionism."

Seemingly Herzl and some of the early Zionists may have been Judenstaatists first and Zionists second, but they were still Zionists.

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 11:41, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

But you have a preconceived assumption that Zionism by definition relates to Palestine and anything other than Palestine would be "Judenstaatists", which is apparently untrue. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Both broad and narrow definitions exist. The best thing is to find good sources for both and present both. Zero^talk 13:06, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

+1, some different varieties to boot. Selfstudier (talk) 14:00, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

BCE and CE

It's BC and AD. No reason to change it except if you are offended by it's reference to Jesus. Using BC and AD doesn't mean you believe in Jesus. It's still the same point in time and by rejecting it's origin intentionally says alot about the lack of tolerance of those that change it. Woodmiser (talk) 12:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

See MOS:BCE.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

No mention of the Palestinian Arab people in the lead section?

From the moment the first Zionist settlers entered Palestine, Zionism became inseparable from its effect on the Palestinian Arab people, especially through the pernicious fiction of "a land without a people for a people without a land". Even if one accepts the strange decision to relegate to the very last paragraph of the lead section the critique of Zionism as settler-colonial, which is as fundamental to it as it is to the idea of Manifest destiny (and check out how soon that article mentions settler-colonialism), the omission of any explicit mention in the lead of the actual people affected by the ideology is a bridge too far.

49.36.11.98 (talk) 19:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, will try to be addressed. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:16, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Modern Zionism

"Following the establishment of the modern state of Israel, Zionism became an ideology that supports the development and protection of the State of Israel as a Jewish state." this isn't an accurate definition of modern Zionism. Some varying definitions: the national ideology of Israel Vox Anyone has others that could be considered? Makeandtoss (talk) 20:19, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Improper Citations

Giving a heads up for anyone who wants to issue corrections before improperly cited items items are excised.

Please feel free to restore any appropriate items with the correct and detailed citations. Mistamystery (talk) 16:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Please be specific. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I added some citations to the content you recently objected to. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Citation 183 (Morris) is still deadlinked. Mistamystery (talk) 23:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Inconsequenntial as a link is not needed anyway. If you like you can remove or replace the link. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I removed the dead link. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Sources don't require links. They don't even have to be on the internet. Zero^talk 14:33, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

It’s not about links. There were citations that were poorly and improperly created by an editor, so will do a review. Beyond this, have a general concern about dishonest edits and mischaracterization of sources so will have a look-see.Mistamystery (talk) 15:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

APC?

@Mistamystery: Can you please clarify what APC stands for? I couldn't understand your revert summary without knowing that. UpdateNerd (talk) 07:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

American Palestine Committee. You said it was "pro-Israel" but it was not operating when Israel was in existence. Mistamystery (talk) 07:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Oh ok that makes sense. Its stance wasn't totally clear from the text, being prefaced by the vague (and unsourced) claim it was "highly effective", in addition to the name which is a bit misleading at a glance. UpdateNerd (talk) 07:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

No, it doesn't explain why Mistamystery also removed a large quotation from Ben-Gurion giving a reason or even mentioning it in the edit summary. Zero^talk 10:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Thought this was already restored with the minor correction requested. I'll just do it for him now. Scratch that. Upon review, he distorted, as well as mischaracterized the quote (which is probably why he has yet to restore it). I'll wait for him to give explanation. Mistamystery (talk) 12:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

In what way was the quote mischaracterized? Also you removed the citation needed from "the impact of Nazi propaganda aimed at the Arab world fostered the 1936–1939 Arab revolt in Palestine." Which reference supports this? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 14:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Here is the full quote from Flapan's book, with the editors "selects" in bold:

I want to destroy first of all the illusion among our comrades that the [Arab] terror is a matter of a few gangs, financed from abroad ... We are facing not terror but a war. It is a national war declared upon us by the Arabs. Terror is one of the means of war ... This is an active resistance by the Palestinians to what they regard as a usurpation of their homeland by the Jews — that's why they fight. Behind the terrorists is a movement, which though primitive is not devoid of idealism and self-sacrifice. From the time of Sheikh Izz al din al Qassam it was dear to me that we were facing a new phenomenon among the Arabs. This is not Nashashibi, not the Mufti, not a matter of a political career or money. Sheikh Al Qassam was a zealot ready to sacrifice his life for an ideal. Today we have not one, but hundreds perhaps thousands [like him]. Behind them is the Arab people. In our political argument abroad, we minimize Arab opposition to us. But let us not ignore the truth among ourselves. I insist on the truth, not out of respect for scientific but political realities. The acknowledgement of this truth leads to inevitable and serious conclusions regarding our work in Palestine ... let us not build on the hope the terrorist gangs will get tired. If some get tired, others will replace them. A people which fights against the usurpation of its land will not tire so easily ... it is easier for them to continue the war and not get tired than it is for us ... The Palestinian Arabs are not alone. The Syrians are coming to help. From our point of view, they are strangers; in the point of law they are foreigners; but to the Arabs, they are not foreigners at all... The centre of the war is in Palestine but its dimensions are much wider. When we say that the Arabs are the aggressors and we defend ourselves — this is only half the truth. As regards our security and life we defend ourselves and our moral and physical position is not bad. We can face the gangs . . . and were we allowed to mobilize all our forces we would have no doubts about the outcome . . . But the fighting is only one aspect of the conflict which is in its essence a political one. And politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves. Militarily, it is we who are on the defensive who have the upper hand . . . but in the political sphere they are superior. The land, the villages, the mountains, the roads are in their hands. The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country, while we are still outside. They defend bases which are theirs, which is easier than conquering new bases ... let us not think that the terror is a result of Hitler's or Mussolini’s propaganda — this helps but the source of opposition is there among the Arabs.

In no way does this quote support the assertion that "the main source of fear for Zionists was the defensive strength of Palestinians." This is pure POV cherry pick (that also seems to have been pulled from a talking point site like this one). Mistamystery (talk) 16:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

You are correct that the selection and summary are not good. However, this quote (presumably in abbreviated form) does belong. Zero^talk 01:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Agree that the quote belongs. And Morris even quotes it in Righteous Victims as "When we say that the Arabs are the aggressors and we defend ourselves—that is only half the truth. As regards our security and life we defend ourselves.… But the fighting is only one aspect of the conflict, which is in its essence a political one. And politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves." This passage immediately precedes Morris' quote in this article saying that "Ben-Gurion, of course, was right." IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 01:57, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I think it all depends on what "the quote" is and how it is framed. It seems that many parties over the years have taken to extract little slices of a juicily worded, but complex speech, for their own purposes.

I'm also concerned about the English translation used in the Flapan's book, which seems generally to be the mother source for most modern citations.

Militarily, it is we who are on the defensive who have the upper hand" doesn't make any sense..there's something amiss here.

I kind of want to see the full original speech and in Hebrew, as well as see if the speech has been alternately translated since. Mistamystery (talk) 02:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

It's not that complex and is rather straightforward. Avi Shlaim even says of Ben-Gurion: "Because ideologically less hidebound than his colleagues, he was willing to admit that in political terms they were the aggressors while the Arabs were defending themselves." IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 03:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

MM, I don't see anything strange about that sentence. Anyway, you can check if the Minutes of the Mapai Political Committee of July 6, 1938 are online at the Labor Party Archives where the original is held. Zero^talk 11:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

What a find. Thank you.

Re: meaning, what is your take on this sentence in general then? Is there a direct meaning to be taken, or is he being poetic via a series of contradictions? Politically they’re the aggressors but the other side is superior? They’re militarily defensive but have the upper hand?

”And politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves. Militarily, it is we who are on the defensive who have the upper hand . . . but in the political sphere they are superior”

Mistamystery (talk) 14:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

"Morris describes the Zionist goal of establishing a Jewish state in Palestine as necessarily displacing and dispossessing the Arab population."

Exact quote from Morris please? Mistamystery (talk) 03:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I didn't add that sentence but perhaps "The Zionists were intent on politically, or even physically, dispossessing and supplanting the Arabs." IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 13:04, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

It was added by @DMH223344: on 2 February. However on the same day, another editor removed Finkelstein "According to Morris, the idea of ethnically cleansing the land of Palestine was to play a large role in Zionist ideology from the inception of the movement. He explains that "transfer" was "inevitable and inbuilt into Zionism" and that a land which was primarily Arab could not be transformed into a Jewish state without displacing the Arab population. Further, the stability of the Jewish state could not be ensured given the Arab population's fear of displacement. He explains that this would be the primary source of conflict between the Zionist movement and the Arab population." which supports the statement. Selfstudier (talk) 13:17, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

The removing editor has been sock blocked. Selfstudier (talk) 13:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

That reminds me that I just added a footnote to that info a few days ago reading: Benny Morris, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited (2003) "Transfer was inevitable and inbuilt into Zionism – because it sought to transform a land which was ‘Arab’ into a ‘Jewish’ state and a Jewish state could not have arisen without a major displacement of Arab population; and because this aim automatically produced resistance among the Arabs which, in turn, persuaded the Yishuv’s leaders that a hostile Arab majority or large minority could not remain in place if a Jewish state was to arise or safely endure." IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 13:30, 19 April 2024 (UTC)