Talk:Zionism

Removal of "indigenous" in criticism

The word "indigenous" was removed in this edit that likewise requested a citation for something that was already cited to several sources. Yesterday I reinserted the line, only to have it once again removed with a demand for an online neutral source. Forgetting for a second that this demand has no basis in Wikipedia policy (sources need not be either online or neutral), below are several sources for the word "indigenous".

• Masalha, Nur (2007), The Bible and Zionism: invented traditions, archaeology and post-colonialism in Palestine-Israel, vol. 1, Zed Books

  p. 16: Despite the distinct features and its nationalist ideology ('return' to the land of the Bible) political Zionism followed the general trajectory of colonialist projects in Africa, Asia, and Latin America: European colonising of another people's land while seeking to remove or subjugate the indigenous inhabitant of the land.

• Thomas, Baylis (2011), The Dark Side of Zionism: Israel's Quest for Security Through Dominance, Lexington Books

  p. 4: The Zionist colonization of Palestine, like that of North America by Europeans, is primarily that of the settler type involving displacement of the indigenous (native) population and replacement with the colonist's own settler population.

• Prior, Michael (1999), Zionism and the state of Israel: a moral inquiry, Psycology Press

  p. 240: Israel is essentially a state for the Jews, dramatically demonstrated by the Zionist expulsion of the majority of the indigenous Arab population and the leveling of their villages to ensure they could not return.

  From the beginning the Zionist leadership realised that Palestine had a sizeable indigenous population ... Despite his public protestations to the contrary, Herzl envisaged expelling the Arab population, and this obvious goal was subscribed by all significant Zionist leaders ... Most alarmingly from a moral perspective, the injustice to the indigenous population is passed over in most Western discourse.

Absent an actual policy-based reason for keeping the word out I will be restoring it. nableezy - 16:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Needs to be rephrase to reflect neutrality and sources within the article. The edit currently "assumes" Zionism is responsible for "promoting unfair confiscation of land, involving expulsion of indigenous peoples, and causing violence towards Palestinians." Rather, edit should say, x, y, and z claim Zionism etc. And the edits you cite refer to Israel's creation, not Zionism as an ideology. Keep the rhetoric to a minimum. Wikifan^{Be nice} 21:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

No, each of the sources is about Zionism and the obvious result of that ideology on the natives. The sentence is about what Zionism has been criticized for, and it has been criticized for each of those things. And do you know what the word "rhetoric" means? Would you like me to be less persuasive? nableezy - 21:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

What policy supports this edit? Yeah, each of your chosen sources says this - but plenty of other sources describe Zionism in a totally different manner.

Just because a source is published does not make it a certified truth. Let me re-paste the edit:

"Zionism has been characterized as colonialism, and Zionism has been criticized for promoting unfair confiscation of land, involving expulsion of indigenous peoples, and causing violence towards Palestinians."

• The sources you listed don't say "Zionism" has been "characterized as "colonialism" (horrible phrasing anyways), but the "The Zionist colonization of Palestine." Zionism is an ideology, acts implemented by Zionists are totally separate. Editors can't make that synthesis.
• I don't know who this Prior guy is, but these sorts of sources aren't great for the article - especially when they conflict with other books. So rephrase the edit to reflect Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

Perhaps add a counter, considering many Zionists described themselves as anti-colonialists. The Zionist militants eventually fought the British Colonial Empire. It looks like such a one-sided, packed edit I can totally understand the removal. Wikifan^{Be nice} 00:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Which policy? NPOV, which requires that all notable POVs be included. I think you are missing the point, the line is specifically about what those people who criticize Zionism as colonialism say. You are pretending that there is synthesis when there is none, the cited sources back every single word of the sentence. As far as it not being "certified truth", I am not required to prove anything as the Truth. The requirement is cited to verifiable reliable sources, and that requirement is met. There are a large number of sources for that section, all of them verifiable and reliable. nableezy - 00:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

No, the cited sources don't back "every single word." Zionist does not = Zionism. Zionism is an ideology. Get it? I stand by my original edit. And who says your sources are reliable anyways? Just more commentary from academics? If you want this in the article, it must be framed in a neutral manner. Wikifan^{Be nice} 00:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The sources for the sentence are as follows:

• Shafir, Gershon, Being Israeli: the dynamics of multiple citizenship, Cambridge University Press, 2002, pp 37-38
• Bareli, Avi, "Forgetting Europe: Perspectives on the Debate about Zionism and Colonialism", in Israeli historical revisionism: from left to right, Psychology Press, 2003, pp 99-116
• Pappé Ilan, A history of modern Palestine: one land, two peoples, Cambridge University Press, 2006, pp 72-121
• Prior, Michael, The Bible and colonialism: a moral critique, Continuum International Publishing Group, 1997, pp 106-215
• Shafir, Gershon, "Zionism and Colonialism", in The Israel / Palestinian Question, by Ilan Pappe, Psychology Press, 1999, pp 72-85
• Lustick, Ian, For the Land and the Lord …
• Zuriek, Elia, The Palestinians in Israel: A Study in Internal Colonialism, Routledge & K. Paul, 1979
• Penslar, Derek J., "Zionism, Colonialism and Postcolonialism", in Israeli historical revisionism: from left to right, Psychology Press, 2003, pp 85-98
• Pappe, Ilan, The ethnic cleansing of Palestine, Oneworld, 2007
• Masalha, Nur (2007), The Bible and Zionism: invented traditions, archaeology and post-colonialism in Palestine-Israel, vol. 1, Zed Books, p. 16
• Thomas, Baylis (2011), The Dark Side of Zionism: Israel's Quest for Security Through Dominance, Lexington Books, p. 4
• Prior, Michael (1999), Zionism and the state of Israel: a moral inquiry, Psycology Press, p. 240

If you would like to challenge any of these be my guest. They are all on their face reliable sources as written by experts in the field and published by high quality presses. nableezy - 00:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not impressed by your collection of sources. I'm saying the paragraphs you pasted above do not support the original edit. Wikifan^{Be nice} 00:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

"the original edit", for which the sources at the beginning of this section were brought, was the addition of a single word, that being "indigenous". I dont actually care what you are impressed with, the sources above are reliable and back the entire paragraph. nableezy - 01:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Well I'm referring to the entire paragraph, not the one word. And a whole list of sources isn't helpful without specific citations. As it stands the edit is not verifiable. Zionists does not = Zionism. Pure SYNTH for editors to make such an assumption. Suspect to accept the "expertise" of some authors over others. Wikifan^{Be nice} 01:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

No, all of these sources are verifiable. They all have page numbers. You can go to nearly any library and find these books. These are "specific citations". You are talking without any knowledge of what the sources say, so forgive me if I give your contention that it is synthesis the attention it deserves. And, again, this is specifically attributed as what critics say about Zionism being colonialism. nableezy - 05:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

So you're saying all those sources verify this sentence:

"Zionism has been characterized as colonialism, and Zionism has been criticized for promoting unfair confiscation of land, involving expulsion of indigenous peoples, and causing violence towards Palestinians.

The sources you posted above, the available sources, say Zionist - not Zionism. "Zionism has been criticized FOR promoting unfair confiscation of land (is this a fact?), "involving expulsion of indigenous peoples" (is zionism responsible for this?) and "causing violence towards palestinians."

The entire sentence is simply stupid, especially the last bit. Zionism is an ideology, substituting the alleged actions of "Zionists" for Zionism is pure synthesis. We can't say "Zionism is colonialism." We can say, "X, y and z say Zionism is colonialism." But the sources you posted don't even say that. It's all rhetoric anyways. Zionism is anti-colonialism, page 91.

Zionists competed directly against the local Arab population for the same land, and many Arabs, not only in Palestine, but also throughout the Arab world, soon equated Zionism with colonialism and employed many anti-semitic stereotypes that their European counterparts had used..."

Articles shouldn't be turned into talking points. Wikifan^{Be nice} 06:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikifan, do you realize that what you cited as saying "Zionism is anti-colonialism" is taken from a chapter titled Is Zionism a colonial movement? which includes on its first page the following:

in the past fifteen years there has risen a cohort of Israeli academics who, following the lead of Arab and western scholorship on the modern Middle East, have made linkages between Zionism and colonialism central to their scholarly endeavors

and further includes on the page that you cite in your mistaken belief that it backs your position the following:

This chapter will contend that the Zionist project was historically and conceptually situated between colonial, anti-colonial, and post-colonial sidcourse and practice. Colonian and anti-colonial elements co-existed in the Zionist project from its inception until the creatuib if the state in 1948.

It is this authors view that Zionism possessed strains of colonialsm and anti-colonialism. But you still dont seem to get the simple point here. The paragraph is about what people who criticize Zionism as colonialism say. What dont you understand about that? The article does not say that Zionism is colonialism, it says that people have criticized it as colonialism for such and such reason. Are you seriously arguing that this view, backed by numerous reliable sources, should not be included because you think it is "rhetoric". And all the sources are available. Go to a library. You know, one of those places built from brick, has a lot of books inside. nableezy - 07:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, anti-colonial and colonialism is part of early Zionist history. But "colonialism" was not a buzzword then as it today. The British Mandate was a "colony" - mandate was just a more formal term.

"The paragraph is about what people who criticize Zionism as colonialism say. What dont you understand about that?

Incorrect. The paragraph dubiously links Zionism (ideology) with the alleged behaviors or activities involving "Zionist." No one doubts loads of scholars and published academics who gone on record saying Israel is one big colonial project, etc - but other sources provide a more balanced POV. The edit you support is not supported by the references you linked above. Right now, there is no consensus for the edit. Most of this "criticisms" belong in "criticisms of the Israeli government" - not here.

The refs I posted above conflict with your refs, so who matters most?

Wikifan^{Be nice} 07:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

"The refs I posted above conflict with your refs" This snippet reflects a misunderstanding. Do we have sources that say that Zionism has been criticised for removing indigenous populations? Yes, we have. Therefore that's a sourced statement and I don't see a problem with having it in the appropriate section. Obviously, it's the critics who are making this point and they consider the Palestinians to be indigenous. Early Zionists, by the way, also considered the Palestinians to be indigenous to Palestine and we have quotes from ben Gurion et al to this effect. --Dailycare (talk) 16:34, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

There is no consensus for the edit??? That material has been in the article for literally months. A user removed the word indigenous, I restored it, another claimed that the sourcing for that word was not sufficient, so I added more sources. What are you going on about? Of course others say it is not colonialism, and that is reflected in the article. However, that specific section is about what the objectors say. It does not say that Zionism is colonialism, it says that certain people have said it is colonialism. Do you really not understand this simple point? nableezy - 16:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The fact that an edit remains in the article unchallenged does not mean it is a protected edit. Edits can be sneaked in at any time. And what am I going about? I've been more than explicit. The sources you posted above are talking about the alleged actions of Zionists. This article is Zionism, an ideology. Commentary on acts by Zionists don't belong here. Editors cannot synthesis material from sources. Am I making sense? Wikifan^{Be nice} 22:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The fact that an edit remains unchallenged means it has consensus. And you are clearly pulling your "argument" from some uncomfortable location, as the very first quote I provided above says political Zionism followed the general trajectory of colonialist projects in Africa, Asia, and Latin America: European colonising of another people's land while seeking to remove or subjugate the indigenous inhabitant of the land. And there are a number of other sources listed in the article for the paragraph. There is no synthesis, the sources support the wording, and it is clearly relevant. Have you read any of the sources listed? Any of them at all? Did you even read the source you brought above? Because if you had you would have seen that the author says that Zionism had similarities with European colonialism. This is why you need to read what you are linking to before actually linking to it. Just googling anti-colonialism+zionism will not be much help to you, as you so helpfully demonstrated above. nableezy - 23:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I waded through all the above discussion, poor me. Really, Wikifan, your case is so weak. The sentence is a report of what critics of Zionism say. The fact is that (with few exceptions) such critics do not distinguish between Zionism and the actions of Zionists. The sources given don't mention this distinction (did I miss one?) and it is OR for you to force it onto them. It seems to me that you are trying to exclude mention of a claim that is in fact one of the claims most commonly heard. Zero^talk 23:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

No, the sentence is a report of what critics of "Zionists" say. How do you know critics do not distinguish between Zionism and the actions of Zionists? It is synthesis for us to assume that. Zionism is an ideology, a political movement - criticisms of actions by Zionists (regurgitated criticisms mind you, and poorly phrased as well) don't belong here. Take a peak at other ethnic nationalist articles: Arab nationalism, Iranian nationalism, etc. Many thousands of people have been killed in attacks by nationalists, land was confiscated in various wars, but the ideology is separate from the behaviors of the followers. The sources Nableezy posted above, the ones' I have access to, don't support the sentence you guys are lobbying for. Wikifan^{Be nice} 23:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit, read Nableezy's comment. Is this the the book you pulled a quote from? Are these the sorts of balanced sources editors look for to support such one-sided biased views? Wikifan^{Be nice} 23:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

If the sources were referring to actions of certain Zionists or groups of Zionists, you would have a point. But when they generalize and make claims about the actions or desires of "the Zionists", your point is too weak. The distinction between "Zionism" and "the wishes of the Zionists" is too little for a criticism section. (Btw, I didn't figure out what this has to do with the presence or absence of the word "indigenous".) Zero^talk 00:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The sources explicit refer to the actions of Zionists, not "Zionism." Zionism is simply Jewish self-determination. A land triple the size of Israel was confiscated during revolutions in Syria, Libya, Egypt, Iraq, Iran, etc - in post-WWII Middle East. But we don't describe Arab or Iranian nationalism as that even though sources exist supporting the events that occurred during the conflicts. Is this a comprehension issue or something? Wikifan^{Be nice} 00:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I understand you perfectly well, which is why I called your argument "weak" rather than "wrong". You say Zionism is simply Jewish self-determination, but the 1897 Zionist Congress was more specific: "Zionism seeks to secure for the Jewish People a publicly recognized, legally secured Heimstätte in Palestine." So it is not just a principle but a desire for a particular outcome. If someone describes that hoped-for outcome as undesirable for some reason, then that is a criticism of Zionism. It doesn't make any difference if the criticism is expressed in the words "The Zionists seek to..." rather than "Zionism seeks to..." (two phrases I selected from the same paragraph of a famous essay of Louis Brandeis). Some of the offered sources don't quite fit that pattern, since they criticize specific past events rather than intentions. In that case your argument is better, since there is indeed a difference between an ideology and specific actions performed in the name of that ideology. But I don't think your argument prevails here either, except perhaps in the choice of wording, since I don't know why a criticism of an action by someone who sees it as "Zionism in practice" should be excluded even if that person considers the action contrary to "Zionism in theory". Zero^talk 11:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Zionism does not = Zionist. Every action by the state of Israel can't possibly be described as Zionist in nature unless an RS explicitly says that. Even then, editors must careful when choosing sources. The "criticisms" above have nothing to do with Zionism, but Zionists - and the criticisms are very one-sided, lifted from incredibly radical sources and are basic talking points. Capitalism does not = Capitalist. Communist does not = Communism, etc. Wikifan^{Be nice} 20:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Have you completely lost it? Here on this talk page you are alone in arguing that the sources are synthesized and that they do not discuss Zionism. They do, and in fact one of those sources is quoted to you. You further admit that you have not even looked at the sources cited, and yet even though you admit to never looking at the sources you claim that you know they are synthesized and that they are not discussing Zionism. So, in sum, you havent looked at any of the sources, but feel perfectly willing to completely remove them on the basis that you know what they say. Keep it up, see what ends up happening. nableezy - 00:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I have looked at the original sources you posted. Trying to find the other the sources you included in the ref, but because nothing is quoted (rather it is a wall of books), it obviously makes it harder to confirm what is being said especially since many of the pages are omitted on google books. But the paragraphs above do not support the edit. Zionism does not = Zionist. It is synthesis. Wikifan^{Be nice} 01:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

And are you aware of the 1rr rule? 1 revert, 2 revert. Certainly you must considering your presence at AE. Neither edits were vandalism. Wikifan^{Be nice} 01:31, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I had not noticed somebody made an edit between my two, but Ive restored the tag to accommodate your newly found sensitivities. One more time; the sources I listed at the beginning of this section were specific for the inclusion of the word "indigenous" as related to the portion of the sentence that reads involving expulsion of indigenous peoples. Given that this section is called removal of "indigenous" in criticism I find it hard to believe that you still dont understand why this section was opened and why I posted those sources. The entire section is not cited to those sources alone. It is cited to a collection of sources that you admit you have not even attempted to look for. And even one of those sources says that Zionism, not actions of Zionists but Zionism, followed the general trajectory of colonialist projects in Africa, Asia, and Latin America: European colonising of another people's land while seeking to remove or subjugate the indigenous inhabitant of the land. You want to keep pretending that the sources dont discuss Zionism themselves you can try to do that. But when one of the quoted sources clearly does, and when you admit you have not even seen the other sources, and when you yourself quote from a source in the mistaken belief that it backs your position when it actually says that Zionism has similarities with European colonialism, you do yourself no favors. One more time: the sources at the top of this section were not meant as being citations for the entire section, they were meant to source the clause expulsion of indigenous peoples. nableezy - 01:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Split

I am not sensitive, but 1rr exists for a reason. I inserted the tag because clearly there is a question of neutrality, a fair opinion no? I have no problem with the "indigenous peoples" citation, though I don't think this is the appropriate article for such language. I am being very clear here - the sources above are referring to the actions (or allegations of) by Zionists, not Zionism. I don't have access to the 10+ books listed under the source but I have a hard time believing all confirm the same sentence, since nothing is actually quoted in the article. Wikifan^{Be nice} 04:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Spinoza

As a reader I know of no grounds for saying that B. de Spinoza was a follower of Sh. Zvi, a Jewish messiah-claimant, so I removed the reference to him that said he was. Caleb004 (talk) 07:09, 19 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caleb004 (talk • contribs) 05:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Russian Empire's long history of genocide?

Russia is home to 180 ethnic and racial groups, with the Russian population making up 80% of those. Not a single group was ever genocided and any such claims are false at best, Russophobic stereotypes at worst. My Jewish great grandfather, who had served 25 years in the Tsar's army, was given a farm, as a gift from the Tsar, for service, loyalty and bravery in combat. This land was taken way from him by the Bolsheviks. He was not an exception. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.114.7.20 (talk) 13:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Evangelical role

The role of Protestant Evangelicals has been well downgraded in the article. I doubt that "Zionism" prior to the late 19th century was any more than a somewhat forlorn "next year in Jerusalem" toast, if that. With the support of England, and the English and American Evangelicals, nada, IMO. It should be mentioned in the lead since it antedates the Jewish movement. (It was the Evangelical hope to "bring about the Millennium" which they "discovered" in Revelations:20 in the early 19th century. (wouldn't be surprised to find this had been discussed earlier, but couldn't search archives to prove it). So for the Evangelicals it was religious, even if secular for the Jewish adherents. Student7 (talk) 14:03, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I think this is intended to be covered in Christian_Zionism? --Flexdream (talk) 17:52, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I can only completely agree with Flexdream. --Mdphddr (talk) 15:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I understand your suggestion about post 19th century Evangelical involvement in Zionism, but my understanding is that no serious steps were ever taken towards the establishment of a separate Jewish state until the early 19th century Evangelicals. Before then, nada. I am not talking about, specifically, the Evangelical perception of Zionism, but the Jewish movement itself owes a major debt to being a serious movement to a specific British Evangelical or two in the early 19th century, at the height of British Imperialism. Sure, the religious ramifications can be dismissed or forked or "see also" for this article, but not the founding as a serious enterprise. IMO this should be included in the lead and higher levels of the article.

And, yes, some of this is indeed covered in both articles. Eventually. Student7 (talk) 14:14, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

zionism and south africa

the article includes a false assertion that "In December 1973, the UN passed a series of resolutions condemning South Africa and included a reference to an "unholy alliance between Portuguese colonialism, Apartheid and Zionism."[86] At the time there was little cooperation between Israel and South Africa.[87]" I don't know how the editor came to the conclusion that there was little relation between the counties, but there was. And infact israel and south african relations is hyperlinked right in the sentance itself where it clearly lays out the particularly strong relations ( more than any middle eastern country) between the two countries. And besides that, it is irrevelent. Lumping zionism in with apartheid wasn't about Israeli support for the south african government, it was about the similarity between the plight of the palestinians and the black south africans. 97.91.179.137 (talk) 03:58, 23 November 2011 (UTC)