Talk:Zionism/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

Flawed lede

The very first sentence of the lede is misleading. The referenced link to "homeland" defines it as a place. While you can debate the existence of heaven or wonderland or middle earth, you can't reasonably debate the existence of the Middle East. Claiming that Zionism supports a place seems to be an attempt to mislead, since it lacks a reasonably clear meaning. Zionism supports a Jewish STATE. Of course, there will be some that identify as Zionists (among other possibilities) who disagree, but then if we try to define any widely held political opinion in detail, we will see the same sort of contradiction and disagreement between those identifying as holding that opinion. 100% conformity is rare. Including ALL alternative interpretations is not useful. I question the NPOV of the section on criticism of Anti-Zionists. I know for a fact that one of the criticisms of Zionism is the belief that Jews should have special legal Rights in the Jewish State not given to non-Jews. This belief can easily be backed up by recitiation of the dozens of laws which support it. It is a criticism of Zionists that they accuse all Anti-Zionists of being anti-semetic. Adding this claim as a criticism of Anti-Zionism, that they are anti-semetic is hardly reasonable. (Although I'm sure many anti-semites are both). I also have a problem of confusing the historical meaning of Zionism with the current meaning. Also, I think this article needs to define what the word means to the various groups who use it for political purposes. Israelis have no ownership of the term, nor do Palestinians - but its virtually certain that what each group means by the term is different. BTW, its quite impressive that such a controversial subject has been able to be done so well here. I do think the lede needs to remove some of the white-wash (soft-peddling, etc.) and come up with a more solid definition. I also think that some of the statements are hyperbole: does anyone seriously believe that "some day" negative group stereotypes (ie discrimination, hatred) will disappear from the Human psyche? To claim that some Zionists hold that belief isn't credible. I would submit that their belief is that such stereotypes will "some day" be held by an insignificant fraction of the human race, something not currently true. Too much "fan boy" POV, racism is left undefined here, and what seems to be the prevalent attitude that only Jews can be Zionists - others can only "support" it.216.96.76.198 (talk) 20:46, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Erroneous sentence

"Since the establishment of the State of Israel, the Zionist movement continues primarily to advocate on behalf of the Jewish state and address threats to its continued existence and security."

This is an unsourced statement. I deleted it and it was reverted. Let's discuss please. The premise "Since the establishment of the State of Israel" is problematic because Zionism was never meant to establish the "State of Israel." And even after the establishment of Israel, "Zionist movement continues primarily to advocate on behalf of the Jewish state" (it never advocated this). See Homeland for the Jewish people#Relation to Zionism where this is explained in detail with sources. USchick (talk) 05:16, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Since no one wants to discuss this, I'm deleting it as an unsourced erroneous statement. USchick (talk) 18:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't profess any expertise here, nor do I have strong opinions on this, but having read the section, I don't see your point. Herzl's Altneue Stadt and his diaries are explicit that his intention was to found a Jewish state, the reasons the concept was softpedalled in public declarations were Turkish sensitivities, non-Zionist Jewish sensitivities and of course Arab nationalist neuralgia. The WZO's constituent bodies' stated aims include advocating for the state, 'representing the national Zionist interests of the Jewish people'.Cpsoper (talk) 19:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I understand this is a delicate topic. The original concept was not "soft-pedaled" as you say, it was very well thought out and gave consideration to other people in the region, like the Turks and the Arabs. If at some point, Zionism changed into something that excludes other people in the region, that needs to be explained in the article. Who changed it? When? USchick (talk) 19:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

How does Jewish statehood imply exclusion? Again if you read Altneue Stadt, it's quite clear Herzl had the broadest possible inclusion in mind in his Jewish state. Have you read his diaries? - he was determined to establish a state from the outset, as were his supporters. All Zionist moves before that were stepping stones, including the rejected proposal of the establishment of a chartered company. Indeed Israel is now remarkably broad in its inclusiveness, even in Knesset. Western states would never tolerate the things that Israelis have of their Arab representatives. George Galloway came the closest in the UK, but he never incited enemy activity in any of the ways Haneen Zoabi has done, nor commended the kidnapping of his own countrymen. For now, she has only been suspended for 6 months for this. It took 6 years of what any other state would consider thoroughly treasonous behaviour before Azmi Bishara was stripped of his immunity in 2007. Can you imagine the Chinese, Russians or even the Congress or Parliament putting up with activities of this kind for more than 5 minutes? I am minded to revert your edit after supplying references from the WZO. Cpsoper (talk) 20:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Apparently there are two different ideas here. Herzl's ideas may have been used as a starting point, but his ideas were not adopted by the First Zionist Congress, when they specifically used the phrase "national home" instead of "state." If the WZO has changed the agenda since the original creation of Israel, that needs to be explained in the article. Both sides need to be represented in the article. If Israel was created as a Jewish State, there wouldn't be any controversy, now would there? If the WZO is advocating for a Jewish State, they are doing so in contradiction to the "Founding Fathers" of Israel, the First Zionist Congress, who considered the idea and then rejected it. USchick (talk) 20:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Apparently "advocating on behalf of the Jewish state" is a politically charged statement. I did a Google search and couldn't find even one organization using that specific language. Can someone find a source please? USchick (talk) 22:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

IMO, editing the statement would be preferable to removing it entirely. Since that word "continuing" seems to be the main taboo and stumbling block, wouldn't it be correct and sufficient for us simply to say that the Zionist movement has turned to advocating on behalf...? It's a mundane and everyday matter. Those don't need citations. Hertz1888 (talk) 23:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

The objection is to the terminology "Jewish state." Can someone please provide a reference that the "Zionist movement advocates on behalf of the Jewish state"? The Jerusalem Program of the WZO tiptoes around this concept, but nowhere does it mention a "Jewish state." To make this claim without a source is WP:OR. Apparently some people advocate for a "Jewish state" (who are they?) and maybe they hide behind Zionism, but so far, there is no evidence that "Zionism advocates for a Jewish state." I propose to replace the words "Jewish state" with "Israel." The sentence would read: Since the establishment of the State of Israel, the Zionist movement continues primarily to advocate on behalf of Israel and address threats to its continued existence and security. USchick (talk) 01:03, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

No objections? USchick (talk) 16:09, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

National movement

In the first sentence: "Zionism is the national movement" can someone please define the word "national"? What nation? Do you mean Israel? The lede needs to be more specific, especially since the dictionary defines it as a worldwide movement, not a national one [1]. Thanks. USchick (talk) 23:03, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the text is misleading. The phrase "national movement" can mean that it is restricted to one nation, as the opposite of international, but I think that here it is supposed to have the meaning of "nationalist movement". Looking at the source provided (encyclopaedia of Motyl), we read "Nationalist movement promoting the creation of a Jewish national state in Palestine called Eretz Israel (‘‘Land of Israel’’)." You can see that the first sentence of the lead is paraphrased from Motyl's first sentence, but with "nationalist" confusingly changed to "national". I'm too lazy to look in the article history to see how this happened, but in any case the text does not follow the source. I will also mention that Motyl's use of "Eretz Israel" as the name of a wished-for state is quite incorrect and should make Motyl suspect as a source. Zero^talk 01:40, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally the second sentence, about religious Zionism, is also cited to Motyl but is hardly at all supported by that source. Zero^talk 01:40, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a link to the source? Let's look at it. Would you like to recommend a better source? The Encyclopedia Britannica seems to do a good job of explaining it, much better than the lede of this article. [2] What do you think? USchick (talk) 02:45, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

"National" is probably the intended meaning and not erroneous. Based on this source, I believe the nation referred to is that of the Jews, which would have been clear enough for many centuries, though perhaps not in our own. Hertz1888 (talk) 03:25, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, this is interesting, apparently, the point of contention has to do with the word "state." According to Homeland for the Jewish people#Relation to Zionism: The phrase "national home" was intentionally used instead of "state" and The "Jewish State" was never part of the Zionist programme. USchick (talk) 04:02, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

The problem with "national movement" is that it has two distinct, though overlapping, meanings. The text of the article, especially the lead, should be unambiguous and based on a source. The web page you (Hertz1888) link to is not reliable, and the encyclopedia currently linked to says "nationalist", so it should either be changed to "nationalist" or a reliable source should be brought in support of a different meaning. Actually the present source (Motyl) is very poor. (Sorry but I don't know of a link to it.) It identifies religious Zionism with false messiahs (!!) and says that the Balfour Declaration committed Britain to a Jewish state (it didn't). Whatever else, a better source is needed. Zero^talk 04:09, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I want to assume good faith, but it seems that this article has been hijacked at some point with massive POV. The page I linked is sourced. I offered it as a contradiction to the definition here, which is not sourced. USchick (talk) 04:16, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I mentioned the JVL article to improve understanding, in response to USchick's original question, not as a proposed source. Based on that understanding, I wouldn't be in a rush to change "national", which seems accurate, to anything else. Hertz1888 (talk) 04:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Hertz1888, I agree that the original meaning may have been more clear than the current one. It seems that several things in Zionism started out one way and ended up somewhere totally different. I'm not at all familiar with Zionism, that's what brought me here in the first place. Anyone with a working knowledge please help, because the existing information doesn't seem accurate. USchick (talk) 04:38, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

The same word is used in Palestinian nationalism I don't think the should any difference in this part.Moreover there are plenty of sources that describe Zionism as national movement.For example [3]--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 08:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

According to that source, it's a national movement that rose out of European nationalism. So they ended up with Zionism? Not European Nationalism? As apposed to "Palestinian nationalism is the national movement of the Palestinian people." Which is logical. In any case, we fixed it by saying "nationalist." USchick (talk) 16:32, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Colonisation

I have mildly rearranged Karsh response to Said and Prior, merged my meager contribution with the previous one below Pensar, and added an online link to the response. The criticism about synthesis re the two translations is well taken, although I still have reservations about the translation Edward Said used, there are quite significant differences in tone. Have not been able to trace entry in German. (? doesn't appear here [4]) Cpsoper (talk) 06:37, 13 August 2014 (UTC) Explanation for latter here - 'incomplete and most unreliable text'. Cpsoper (talk) 06:43, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I have access to two German editions but they are near my home and I am far away from home. I can look in about two weeks. One has this passage, if I remember correctly, while the other (like all English editions before Patai's) suppresses it. Meanwhile it is problematic to feature Karsh so much, he is too polemic. There is nothing in the diaries about "squatters"; he seems to have just made that up. He also leaves out the part where Herzl describes the trickery to be used for acquiring the land. Zero^talk 08:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

The diary, the 1922 German version is on www.archive.org, and the relevant text from 12 June 1895 is on p. 98. Now, my German is far from perfect, but from what I can see there is a big, big problem for Karsh: the distortions are simply not there, i.e. Khalidi, Herst and Said have quoted the whole from the 1922 version. There might be later versions of the diaries which were more complete, though. Huldra (talk) 21:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Good find. My notes on the English translation edited by Patai suggest that it matches the German text in these pages. The part quoted by Karsh is there, but neither Khalidi nor Karsh have quoted everything (it covers roughly pages 98–100). Herzl describes a series of actions using secret agents to buy the land of large landholders and coax "the poor" (who are not explicitly identified as the previous tenants of the land but could be) to emigrate by making it their only choice economically. I don't like "expel", rather "spirit unnoticed" is more literal and Herzl notes that the Jews won't have a power of enforcement except the economic one. The need for secret agents who don't identify who they are really working for is emphasised over and over, which Karsh fails to mention. The paragraph about respecting other faiths is typical Herzl disorganised thought—It looks like a contradiction but isn't really. Zero^talk 04:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Herzl is discussing non-Jews who are living on "the estates assigned to us". He says that those minorities who stay in the Jewish state should be respected, but economic pressure should be used to reduce the minority population. That is, indeed, not a contradiction. Because Ben-Gurion emphatically rejected all such calls for a transfer (as did other leading Zionists like Jabotinsky), and Herzl was hardly a major agitator on behalf of that idea (the diary entry is the only piece in his entire oeuvre to consider it), its significance is merely an attempt to hide the Arab evacuation orders from history.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:21, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

"The estates assigned to us" refers to the region in which Jewish settlement is approved by the relevant government. It can't mean "land given to us" or there would be no need to discuss the purchase of it. I won't reply to the rest of your posting, especially not to the part supported by the crap from StandWithUs. Zero^talk 11:12, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't expecting you to respond, certainly not to anything that lacks peer-reviewed academic consensus, which as we all know is the absolute truth!TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 11:19, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Having the highest possible sourcing standards is something I'm proud of, yes. Zero^talk 14:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Hertzberg citation

This edit contains the addition "Readings of the founders of Zionism shows that they lived in the same Europe which spawned fascism and Naziism, and they adopted the anti-Jewish view that Jews did not belong in Europe as the core of their ideology."

Having the Hertzberg book in hand, I don't think it is supported by the author (it doesn't even list a page number). Hertzberg doesn't seem to me to state that the notion of Jews not belonging in Europe was an "anti-Jewish" one. Either the citation should be fixed, or the statement should be corrected or removed. Pieindasky (talk) 03:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I can't find it either, so I'm removing the text. Zero^talk 08:41, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

This idea needs to be in the article though, since I've encountered in several sources the idea that Zionism and anti-Semitism share the view that Jews shouldn't live among European nations. We need to find some of those sources. --Dailycare (talk) 19:08, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

One source is straight there, from Hertz, same German 1922-edition of his diary, p. 93 (from June, 1895): "Die Antisemiten werden unsere verlesslichsten Freunde, die antisemitischen Lander unsere Verbundeten. Wir wollen alle geachtete Leute fortziehen." Cheers, Huldra (talk) 22:42, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

This is WP:PRIMARY--Shrike (talk) 03:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY is not forbidden, just any "personal interpretation" of it. I would say that quoting Hertz on Zionism is exactly a case where primary is relevant, much like quoting Karl Marx on Marxism. Having said that, I have no strong opinion presently about wether or not to include it (I am not really editing this article; I don´t have much of the literature). Btw, the quote, from 1895, (translated by an excellent German translator), goes something like this: "The antisemites will become our most reliable friends, the antisemitic countries [will become] our allies. We want to depart as respected people." Cheers, Huldra (talk) 19:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Winston Churchill sums up the mainstream view of that time, where Jews were blamed for everything in Europe including the French Revolution. [5] Even though a lot of what he says was later refuted by historians, that was the general idea at the time. Then he mentions Zionism as a permanent home as "a struggle for the soul of the Jewish people." So a permanent home would solve two problems. It would get the Jews out of Europe where no one wants them, and it would give them something else to do besides working toward worldwide communism (a thereat to Churchill.) Basically Churchill endorses the idea of a permanent home, and if someone can convince the Jews (win the soul of the Jewish people) all the world's problems would be solved, including Churchill's problem (the threat of communism). USchick (talk) 05:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Explain removal of text

I am removing this text:

In 1873, Shah of Persia Naser al-Din Shah Qajar met with British Jewish leaders, including Sir Moses Montefiore, during his journey to Europe. At that time, the Persian king suggested that the Jews buy land and establish a state for the Jewish people. Reference: "World Jewish Communities". World Jewish Congress. Archived from the original on 22 July 2006. Retrieved 19 July 2014.

Reason: The source is an anecdote in a little grey box in an archived page of an organization with an obvious vested interest. No author is given. It does not satisfy WP:RS. I tried to find this item in better sources but did not succeed. Montefiore certainly met the Shah in 1873 and in his diary (Vol. 2, page 256 of the printed edition) devotes some space to it. He also quotes a letter from the Shah. A Jewish State or similar is not there. I also couldn't find it in this book but didn't manage to search it thoroughly. I also looked at a few articles about the meeting in the Jewish Chronicle of 1873 without finding it, but again didn't manage to search it thoroughly. The story is plausible, but without a proper source it is inadmissible. Zero^talk 15:25, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Here is what I found [6] probably not enough.But its interesting to see a source that book gives--Shrike (talk) 16:26, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't have it, but I notice that both Google and Amazon classify it as a book for children. Amazon says "grade 7 and up". That makes it most unlikely to have a reference and obviously it can't be accepted on its own. Zero^talk 08:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

nation state?

Not all forms of Zionism wished to create a Jewish state; just a Jewish ethnic homeland. JDiala (talk) 05:45, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Irredentism or not

Dear Chadhkra and Ykantor,

Just to disperse the misunderstandings, here are the referenced texts:

"Even before Herzl's utopian novel was published, the Rabbi (Rabbi Kook) had published the first of three articles which anticipated the later orthodoxy of Religious Zionism. He claimed, not only that the creation of the State of Israel in Palestine was the fulfilment of certain prophecies in the Torah, but that the irredentism of Political Zionism contained, unbeknown to them, a divine Jewish spark which Religious Zionist would one day turn 'into a great light', a subtle appropriation of secular Jewish irredentism." in: GRIFFIN, Roger: Terrorist's Creed: Fanatical Violence and the Human Need for Meaning. Palgrave Macmillan. 2012. p.128.

"Secular Zionism had a nationalist premiss: without a territory of their own, the Jews could not become a proper 'people' - like the English, French, Germans, Greeks, Italians, Irish, Poles, or Czechs. The Zionist idea was predicated on the principle of national self-determination as famously articulated by U.S. President Wilson after the First World War. But Zionism also drew heavily on the eschatological ideas embedded in Jewish religious tradition. Redemption meant the physical return of Jews to the Land of Israel - a sacred territory promised to their Hebrew ancestor Abraham by God. Redemption conveys both secular and religious meanings. Irredentism - the urge to restore unredeemed land to the nation - was an important component of the nationalist movements, including fascism and Nazism, that emerged in Europe after the First World War. Non-religious Zionism shares with fascism the idea that a particular piece of territory belongs inalienably to one nation: in this respect, there is no essential difference in kind between Zionist claims on Palestine and, say, the Italian irredentist claims on the port of Fiume on the Dalmatian coast, a part of the formerly Venetian territory awarded to Yugoslavia after the First World War." in: RUTHVEN, Malise: Fundamentalism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press. 2007. p.96.

Striving for the reestablishment of a Jewish state demolished two thousand years earlier by the Roman Empire, in a land abandoned by the Jews in favour of more promising territories of the aforementioned Empire, and populated by other peoples in the course of time is unarguably a prime and scholarly example of Irredentism.

Have a nice day,

Maghasito

--Maghasito (talk) 21:00, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

The Irredentism article mentions the annexation of existing states or territories that belong to states, yet the Zionist movement came to a region that wasn't a state, and didn't ask to be annexed to another state, so it's actually very different. But if some sources mention it, then it can be mentioned as an opinion but it doesn't belong in the first line. Yuvn86 (talk) 21:41, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Dear Yuvn86,

Do not be silly, Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire. After the First World War it became a British mandate temporally, but was not part of the British Empire. In fact, the Zionists (Herzl) approached the Ottoman Empire to obtain a grant for the creation of an autonomous Jewish province in Palestine even before the war. The Turks rejected the plan, but allowed the immigration of Jewish settlers to the region. The article on Irredentism is poorly worded to say the least. Irredentism is any political movement trying to justify territorial claims on the basis of (real or imagined) historic or ethnic affiliations, simply put.

Have a nice day,

Maghasito --Maghasito (talk) 22:22, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Your description is that of national movements in general, but if you google irredentism you'll see more or less the description I wrote, that while a related concept, it's also different concept. An example from this year is the annexation of Crimea by Russia. Yuvn86 (talk) 02:15, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The article has to obey Wikipedia rules. If you want to apply common sense you have to beware wp:or.

• Rules: There is no support for for the claim that Zionism is currently an irredent movement.

1. Griffin does not say that. He interpret Kook's book only.
2. RUTHVEN does not say that. He writes "Irredentism - ... was an important component of the nationalist movements". Anyway, he refers to the past and does not say it happens nowadays.
3. Hinnebusch say it was in the past.
4. Storrs say it was in the past.

• Common sense:

1. Up to Balfour declaration (1917) Zionism wished that Palestine, a part of the Ottoman empire would be a Jewish state. If you call it Irredentism, then you have to call Hussein bin Ali, Sharif of Mecca (and his son Faisal) ambition to rule Syria ,a part of the Ottoman empire, an Irredentism too. the same goes for Lebanon, Transjordan and Iraq. Would you accept that?
2. After Balfour declaration (1917), and the League of Nation decision, Palestine was declared a national home for the Jews. So Zionism became a desire to settle a land that was internationally recognized as future Jewish state. Where is the Irredentism?

• The Arab Palestinians wanted Palestine to become an Arab state, and I can understand it. However, from 1917 it was not an issue of irrenditism but a struggle between two national movement for the "ownership" of the country. As seen by the international community, the solution is a partition of the country into 2 ethnic states: An Arab and an Israeli state. Ykantor (talk) 10:40, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The colonisation of the Palestinian occupied territories is the modern form of irredentism.

Pluto2012 (talk) 11:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree. However, the majority of the Israeli public is still for 2 states between the Jordan and the sea, so this irredentism can not be generally attributed to Zionism. Ykantor (talk) 17:35, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

If sources say Zionism is irredentist, then we'll say that too. What the Israeli public says in a poll about another issue isn't relevant. --Dailycare (talk) 20:58, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

It is not the first time that you react before reading and understanding the issue. Where are those sources? It was not presented here. Ykantor (talk) 05:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Google Books search results: [7], [8], [9], [10].     ←   ZScarpia   10:33, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Google Books search results using terms revanchist and revanchism: [11], [12].     ←   ZScarpia   10:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The word "zionism" has different significations. Postzionism is not irredentist; Secular zionism may not be; Neozionism is irredentist.

I don't know how to make a clear and simple lead from this. Pluto2012 (talk) 15:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Use of words such as strains, elements, components, parts?     ←   ZScarpia   17:03, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Ykantor, my point is that your understanding of how the two-state solution is described in polls is not a determination, based on sources, concerning irredentism and Zionism, and thus it isn't persuasive. --Dailycare (talk) 19:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Dear Ykantor,

The Bedouin and Arab population was autochthonous to the region, and lived there continuously up to the present age, and formed the overwhelming majority of the population. Their attempt to gain independence from Ottoman Turkish rule was a nationalist independence movement, and not irredentism. The Zionist movement of European and American Jewry was a nationalist movement, but the Jews were not autochthonous to the region, as they abandoned it thousand years earlier. The Zionist movement was irredentist, because its goal was the reoccupation of the ancient homeland and reestablishment of the Jewish state, after two thousand years. And in fact it was colonialist too, as it yearned for an already inhabited (by the aforementioned Arab population) area. The liberation movement of the displaced Palestinians is irredentist, as they try to recapture their lost homeland from Israel. The Israeli government policies – embodied in the 1967 war waged by Israel and the continuing settlement building – are irredentist too.

“Non-religious Zionism shares with fascism the idea that a particular piece of territory belongs inalienably to one nation: in this respect, there is no essential difference in kind between Zionist claims on Palestine and, say, the Italian irredentist claims on the port of Fiume on the Dalmatian coast, a part of the formerly Venetian territory awarded to Yugoslavia after the First World War.” in: RUTHVEN, Malise: Fundamentalism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press. 2007. p.96.

What does it mean? Zionist claims on Palestine and the Italian (or any other claims of such kind, like German claims for the Sudetenland, Hungarian claims for Transylvania, Irish claims for Northern Ireland etc.) irredentist claims on the port of Fiume are the one and the same in nature, so Zionism is/can be called irredentist.

As the reestablishment of the Jewish state in Palestine was the sole major political program point on the Zionist agenda, Zionism could be considered as the proper name of Jewish irredentism. Religious Zionism and Revisionist Zionism are still active forces in the formation of Israel’s policies, and the Greater Israel project is still up and running. Zionism is irredentist…

Have a nice day,

Maghasito

--Maghasito (talk) 19:16, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Maghasito, I think you may be proceeding from a flawed premise to pushing a false POV in your unrelenting, major additions to the lead. There is a huge difference between "abandoning" the region, as you assert, and being dispossessed, exiled and dispersed. A little reading of history will also show that the area was never without a continuing Jewish presence. So much for abandonment. Hertz1888 (talk) 20:22, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I think it would also be wrong to assert that the whole diaspora was created by force ("dispossessed, exiled and dispersed") and to ignore the effects of proselytisation outside Palestine, voluntary migration and the conversion of parts of the Jewish population of the area to, first, Christianity, then Islam.     ←   ZScarpia   12:47, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

There is evidence of uninterrupted presence of Jews in Palestine, so Jews are autochthonous to the land, hence Zionism is a nationalist independence movement. The history of the Palestinian people goes back only a few centuries, we cannot be sure of their origin, so it is a stretch to call them autochthonous. “WarKosign” 15:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Note the very first sentence of the Palestinian People article: "The Palestinian people (Arabic: الشعب الفلسطيني‎, ash-sha‘b al-Filasṭīnī), also referred to as Palestinians (Arabic: الفلسطينيون‎, al-Filasṭīniyyūn, Hebrew: פָלַסְטִינִים), are the modern descendants of the peoples who have lived in Palestine over the centuries, and who today are largely culturally and linguistically Arab due to Arabization of the region."     ←   ZScarpia   17:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, a few centuries as I wrote. Do you have sources on history of the Palestinian people before, say, 1700 ? “WarKosign” 17:55, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

You should be able to find relevant reading matter here. Now let's get back to discussing the article, because I'm not interested in being told how the people living in Byzantine Palestine were completely replaced by others who'd ridden in from the Arabian peninsula (apart from some Kurds, Circassians, Armenians, Maronites and Jews etc.).     ←   ZScarpia   18:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes this is getting off topic, but I want Zscarpia to keep in mind that the PLO was created only in 1964. That's pretty late. And you can also google "history+mesopotamia", but this doesn't mean that the people who lived there ever constituted a "Mesopotamian nation". Mesopotamia, Palestine, Florida among others are just names Europeans gave to locations. Yuvn86 (talk) 01:09, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Dear Yuvn86, WarKosign, Hertz1888,

In 1851 the population of this territory of the Ottoman Empire (later known as Palestine) had a total population of approximately 340,000 persons. From this approximately 13,000 was the number of Jews, amounting for less than 4 percent of the total. The majority of the Jews were centred in Jerusalem. The Jews enjoyed official protection of the Sultanate, and their community prospered. Most of them descended from the Spanish and Portugal Jewry accommodated by the Empire in the 15th century. Sultan Mahmud II (1808-1839) declared that all his subjects, regardless of their religion, are equal. Sultan Abdul Mejid (1839-1861) issued fermans in 1839 and 1856, granting equality to all Ottoman subjects, regardless of their religion. The ferman of 1856 provided full equality to the non-Muslim communities in the judicial system, taxation, military service. The Ottoman Jewry was quite content whit this situation of theirs. They were a well-protected minority. The Zionist Jews were European newcomers, first generation settlers, nothing else or more. There is no need to whitewash Zionism. It was an ethnic nationalist, irredentist movement: it reached its goal, and in the face of history this is the only thing capable to truly legitimize it. Irredentism is a scientific term and not a swearword.

Have a nice day,

Maghasito

--Maghasito (talk) 21:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Again, like I wrote above, if you google "irredentism" you will see that most dictionaries describe it as states or peoples who wish to annex or be annexed to other territories based on history and attachment. But the Zionist movement didn't have a state, so it's not it. Not every national movement is irredentism. Now maybe the post-1967 settlements are, but it's not what the article is about; and in a way, may even be the opposite: Zionism maybe fought against (Arab) irredentism in 1948 - Pan-Arabism. Yuvn86 (talk) 00:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

to Maghasito. Yours:The Bedouin and Arab population was autonomous to the region, and lived there continuously up to the present age, and formed the overwhelming majority of the population. Their attempt to gain independence from Ottoman Turkish rule was a nationalist independence movement, and not irredentism.

It is debatable whether the `Hashemite rulers of Higaz (a part of Saudi Arabia) had the right to rule Syria, more than thousand of kilometers away. At that time, the Ottoman already been defeated / left. Suppose the Syrians would had to vote for their own republic or to accept an Arab foreigner as a king. What would be the vote? . Please read here [13]:Critics claim that this involvement of foreign powers in handing out large sums of money and military support to establish an empire that would be led by imperial aspirants, rather than legitimate Arab nationalists, is the primary cause for the lack of duration of the majority of the early Hashemite Kingdoms (Kingdom of Hejaz and Kingdom of Iraq). Critics go on further to claim it was anathema to many Arabs that the family of the Sharif of Mecca, the Hashemites, could wrest control from the Ottoman Sultan.

-The same goes for:

-- What right had this king to rule the Druze's territory? The Syrian Druzes had their own state during the 1920's years. Please read here [14] about their wish to be free / having an Autonomy. What right he had to rule the Alawite State?

-- the Kurds and 4 irredentist states who occupies them: Iraq, Iran, Turkey and Syria.

-- The Iraqi claim for Kuwait and an Iranian soil next to their border

-- The Egyptian regime who wished to rule Sudan. (Anglo-Egyptian Sudan)

-- The Syrian claims for Lebanon (Lebanon–Syria relations): Syria has only officially recognized Lebanon's sovereignty recently.

-- Moreover, this phenomena is not limited to the Middle east. Belgian people still remembers ([15])the Belgium also lost Eastern Limburg, Zeeuws Vlaanderen and French Flanders and Eupen: four territories which it had claimed on historical grounds. The Netherlands retained the former two while French Flanders, which had been annexed at the time of Louis XIV remained in French possession, and Eupen remained within the German Confederation. The Mexican still mourns Texas and etc.

So what is your view about irrendentism? Is it a limited issue concerning past Italian , Zionism etc. or is it a common phenomena, that might be shared with a lot of states? To be continued later. Ykantor (talk) 14:32, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

to Maghasito. Yours: In 1851 ... The majority of the Jews were centred in Jerusalem. The Jews enjoyed official protection of the Sultanate, and their community prospered. However, according to Nathan Weinstock, the British consul of Jerusalem wrote at 1831 the Jews are suffering so much from extortion and oppression, that people say that the Jews pays for the air they breath. (excuse me for the translation). source : http://www.haaretz.co.il/magazine/.premium-1.2315763 (Hebrew. more about the authour: book: Une si longue présence , Comment le monde arabe a perdu ses Juifs, 1947-1967, by Nathan Weinstock ; a Book review (English): " Une si longue présence , Comment le monde arabe a perdu ses Juifs, 1947-1967" 2008, by Nathan Weinstock. Ykantor (talk) 14:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Too controversial, wp:fringe and wp:undue opinion. It doesn't belong to lead. For example, neither Southern Syria under the Ottoman empire nor Mandatory Palestine were independent states, therefore "irredentism" has nothing to do with Zionism. Irredentism is the desire of an established state to annex parts of another established state.--Keramiton (talk) 23:47, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

to Maghasito. yours:"The Zionist movement was ... And in fact it was colonialist too, as it yearned for an already inhabited (by the aforementioned Arab population) area." The Usage of colonialism in this case is wrong and is a product of anti Israeli propaganda.

- According to Colonialism: "Colonialism is the establishment, exploitation, maintenance, acquisition, and expansion of colony in one territory by people from another territory. It is a set of unequal relationships between the colonial power and the colony and often between the colonists and the indigenous population."

- exploitation: The Zionist movement has invested a lot in the country, which is the opposite of extracting money or equivalent out of the country by the colonialist power.

- The Zionist movement hard work raised directly (by producing jobs) and indirectly (by paying taxes that were used by the government to facilitate education and medical services) the local Arabs standard of leaving along the Mandate period. Under the Israeli regime, all citizens are equal. Although in practice there are some differences, The Israeli Arabs worst nightmare is being forces to relinquish the Israeli citizenship and accepting Palestinian citizenship. This is the opposite of colonialist: "unequal relationships ... and often between the colonists and the indigenous population."

- these are major differences between colonialism and the Zionist movement.

-The Arab Palestinians mourns the Nakba great disaster, and I can understand it. However, if hypothetically they would have accepted at 1937 the Peel commission partition (where the proposed Jewish state was really tiny), bearing in mind that they could not afford to maintain a proper regime without major financial assistance, (as said in Peel, Woodhead, UNSKOP commissions), they could have most of the country, while keeping the relatively high standard of living subsidized by the Jewish state. Ykantor (talk) 17:41, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Given that the ZIonists rejected the Peel partition plan, your alternate history is not very plausible. Zero^talk 23:02, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

to Zero: you yourself said: "Reading the (Zionist) resolution carefully, you can see that it does not reject the idea of partition. It only rejects the particular partition scheme that Peel recommended along with many of its features. So it is a sort of acceptance in principle but not in detail." The two main Jewish leaders, Chaim Weizmann and Ben-Gurion had convinced the Zionist Congress to approve equivocally the Peel recommendations as a basis for more negotiation.

-Hence the Peel proposal was not rejected and the Zionist leaders were supposed to negotiate with a hope to enlarge the Jewish state size. Ykantor (talk) 18:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Ykantor, you forgot to mention an important fact: the main difference between colonialism and Zionism is that in a typical colonial system the central power extracts resources from a distant (conquered) territory to feed the metropolis. It was a system widely implemented by Europe in Africa and Asia. The Zionist movement didn't extract resources from Palestine on behalf of Russia, Poland or Yemen. The Zionist movement created an independent country by EXPELLING the colonial power at the time (Britain).

Zero0000, you are right, but the Arabs rejected the 1947 partition plan, which the Jews accepted.--Keramiton (talk) 14:50, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Nobody claimed that Zionism was a 'typical' colonial movement. A difference would be that the UK was colonising Palestine with non-nationals rather than its own. Palestine wouldn't be the first example of colonialists throwing out the colonial power. Various unfortunate facts that you omitted to mention or are not aware of include that Zionists referred to themselves and their organisations as colonisers and colonial until it became an embarrassment to do so, that Herzl was sent to Africa to seek advice from Cecil Rhodes on how Palestine might best be colonised and that Weizmann had discussed Palestine becoming a Jewish state within the British Empire with the British.

If you are using a sock account to evade an AE sanction, as I would say is likely given your edit history, the way you burst fully formed onto the ARBPIA scene and the prevalence of that happening, perhaps you should consider desisting now before you make the record of pro-Zionist editors look even worse.

    ←   ZScarpia   15:28, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

to ZScarpia. Yours:"Zionists referred to themselves and their organisations as colonisers and colonial". Let us have a look at the substance, rather than the terminology. As said, The Zionist movement invested in the country, unlike colonialism that extract the wealth of the country. Also, the Zionist thought (naively) that by raising the local people standard of living, they may welcome the new comers, while Colonialism would not care about the locals. In my opinion, with such a major differences, the Zionist movement should not be called a Colonialist movement.

Yours: "Herzl was sent to Africa to seek advice from Cecil Rhodes on how Palestine might best be colonised". Not true. It is just a blatant propaganda. BTW Herzl was never sent to any place. The Zionist movement had no money and no authority to tell Herzl what to do. Herzl personally financed his expensive journeys. When He died, he was nearly broke. Ykantor (talk) 19:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

On the contrary, I think that the way that Zionists referred to themselves before doing so undermined their arguments is very germane.

Zionists, and backers of Zionism such as Balfour, argued that the inhabitants of Palestine would aquiesce in Jewish emigration, and the creation of a Jewish homeland there, through Jewish investment in the area. I think you would be hard put to find instances where money was invested for reasons other than furthering Zionist aims, rather than improving the lot of non-Jewish inhabitants, though. Added to that, the British awarded two large 'concessions' to the Zionists which helped them finance themselves and which could very well have been awarded to the Arabs themselves, and also sold land without a registered owner to Zionists at very low prices. Rather than improving their lot, the Zionists dispossed Palestinian peasants from land which had been bought from Arab 'owners', who had become the registered owners by promising in the late nineteenth centure to pay taxes to the Ottoman authorities rather than by any real title to the land.

On doing a Google Books search, I can only find references to Herzl writing to Rhodes, rather than travelling to Africa to meet him, so I owe you an apology on that count. However it's not all good news; Herzl did refer to Zionist objectives in terms of colonisalism. For instance, The Case for Palestine: An International Law Perspective, John B. Quigley, p.7: Herzl approached Britain because, he said, it was "the first to recognize the need for colonial expansion." According to him, "the idea of Zionism, which is a colonial idea, should be easily understood in England." In 1902 Herzl approached Cecil Rhodes, who had recently colonized the territory of the Shona people as Rhodesia. "You are being invited to help make history," he said in a letter to Rhodes. "It doesn't involve Africa, but a piece of Asia Minor; not Englishmen, but Jews. How, then, do I happen to turn to you since this is an out-of-the-way matter for you? How indeed? Because it is something colonial."

    ←   ZScarpia   22:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

- Yours: "Herzl writing to Rhodes". I really appreciate your ability to apologize. This is not common here. Anyway, according to Gelber & Liska 2007 book p. 102, Herzl did not sent this letter to Rhodes. It is true that Herzl tried to convince the British to support the Zionist motive since it would be a British colony.

- Yours:" money was invested for reasons other than furthering Zionist aims, rather than improving the lot of non-Jewish inhabitants". This is true, but still Zionism helped the Arabs, directly (by producing jobs) and indirectly (by paying taxes that were used by the government to facilitate education and medical services) to raise the local Arabs standard of leaving along the Mandate period. As I recall, Arab population villages near Jewish area was growing much more than in other Arab villages.

-Yours: "the British awarded two large 'concessions' to the Zionists which helped them finance themselves and which could very well have been awarded to the Arabs themselves". You probably mean:

1. Moshe Novomeysky- "British Mandatory authorities subsequently issued a tender for mining the Dead Sea area. Many groups applied; Novomeysky's consortium included a Scotsman named Thomas Gregorie Tulloch who had sought permission to mine there as early as the beginning of the British rule in 1918. After beating fierce competition from American firms for the right to mine around the Dead Sea, the application was officially accepted by High Commissioner Herbert Plumer in 1927. This triggered a debate in the British Parliament, revealing the anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist feelings of some MPs. In this debate, the speaker of the House of Lords, Islington, described Zionism as an "unfortunate experiment"." It does not seem to be an unfair process. There was a tender, with fierce competition, and anyone could bid.
2. Pinhas Rutenberg: "In 1919, Rutenberg appeared in Paris and ... Promoting the electrification plan, he received financial support from Baron Edmond James de Rothschild and his son James A. de Rothschild and, finally, settled in Palestine to realize it....In 1921 - over fierce Arab-Palestinian protests against giving Zionism an economic stranglehold of the country - the British granted Rutenberg the Jaffa and (later) the Jordan electricity concessions." Do you know that Rutenberg received the concession while using unfair methods?

- Yours "the British ... sold land without a registered owner to Zionists at very low prices." Are there sources supporting this claim? . to be continued. Ykantor (talk) 20:37, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

As far as the concessions go, Chapter 6 of The Roots of Separatism in Palestine: British Economic Policy, 1920-1929 by Barbara Jean Smith (Syracuse University Press, 1993) gives a contradictory, less benign picture.     ←   ZScarpia   01:29, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

-Concerning the 2 concession, I did not find in the book that there was an Arab bid at all, and if there was one, it could not win the bid because of supposedly pro Jewish Bias. Both projects needed huge investment, and it was not straight forward to come up with a financial backer. So maybe no other local enterpreners tried to win those bids. According to page 132, the Palestinian administration could not afford to establish an electric grid, so the concession would have been given to Pinhas Rutenberg anyway, and for propaganda purpose it would show the British support of the Zionists.

-Yours "the British ... sold land without a registered owner to Zionists at very low prices." I will appreciate if you find a support for this claim. Anyway, Herbert Samuel administration sold the Ghor - Mudawarra land to Arab peasants. It was sold very cheaply, with low annual installment, along a lot of years. Some info here.

-Yours: "the Zionists dispossessed Palestinian peasants from land which had been bought from Arab 'owners',". I recall that I have read that the amount of dispossessed Arab peasants was very small. Any way I agree that it is an ugly side of purchasing lands by the Zionist. Do you have numbers? . Ykantor (talk) 20:13, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Ignore Keramiton, he is nothing more than a disruptive sock. AcidSnow (talk) 01:46, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Notes:

Irredentism, nation state, objectivity...

Dear Contributors,

In a supposedly scientific discourse one should keep his/her sensitivities under strict control and try to keep much needed objectivity. In this regard I really appreciate the contributions of ZScarpia.

Almost all nationalist movements (irredentist and secessionist variants alike) intend to create an independent state from a population already in place or to reunite a separated people (like the Hungarians in Czechoslovakia and Rumania or the Sudeten Germans in the 1930s, separated by newly drawn borders) — it is very rare for it to include the total displacement of another indigenous population, which is far more common of successful colonialist movements.

Zionism incorporates into itself elements of exclusivism, xenophobia, racism, extreme nationalism/chauvinism, and militarism that places it way outside of a "mere" nationalist context and makes it a close kin of fascism and National Socialism. And in fact Revisionist Zionists looked to fascist Italy for inspiration (Brit HaBirionim for example.)

The representatives of Zionist movement were keen to paint a heroized, “larger than life” image of theirs, and used every tool of political marketing to make their aims acceptable/digestible to the general public. To call the creation of a nation state "the establishment of a national home", to call the Jewish settlers "pioneers" are examples of these fine-tuned euphemisms. They did not talk about buying out the Arabs (i.e. forcing them out by economic means) from Palestine, about forced relocation etc. in public.

Jewish private entrepreneurs like Edmond Rothschild and Jewish Colonization Association bought cheap agricultural land and established colonies and plantations, an started a wave of 'Societies of the Thousand' and real estate speculation. They worked for profit with hired local Arab workforce, so the Jews became a kind of estate owners and not "the People of the Land". And all this was flawed and ended up in failure. Perhaps the Ottoman society was backward in contrast to European societies (in fact it was on a par with Russia, Rumania and the like, and the Turkish attempts at its modernisation were thwarted by France and Britain), but Jewish presence was not a "modernizing force in a primitive, backward land". The local farmers cultivated the land in a sustainable manner, based on experience gained over centuries. Yes, they lacked the monetary resources the Jewish settlers had at their disposal, but that was not their fault.

The Arabs rejected the partition plans, because these plans were unjust, so to speak. It required the “relocation” of very large numbers of the indigenous Arab population, and left most of the arable land to the Jewish state.

There are quality scientific works calling Zionism as irredentism. It is not fringe or undue opinion: it is a fully justifiable and justified, objective classification of Zionism. Irredentism is a scientific term, and as such it does not carry a value judgment. Some irredentisms are more readily justifiable than others, but they remain irredentisms…

Have a nice day,

Maghasito

--Maghasito (talk) 13:18, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Maybe if you actually read this article and other history of Zionism articles you'll see that you are wrong on many things. You write as if Zionists all had the same ideas and plans. That's not true, Zionists came from all background and had many debates among themselves on the goals, future etc. It was not a single ideology. And "left most of the arable land to the Jewish state", you're joking, right? what they mostly got under the plan was the Negev desert. Also the "exclusivism, xenophobia, racism" etc. claims can actually be said about the many Arab leaders of that time such as Haj Amin Al-Husseini. So please stop with your own personal POV and biases here. Yuvn86 (talk) 16:06, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

to Maghasito. Since you seem to be an intelligent person, it is really sad to read your text which is plainly wrong. the correct narrative is that the Arabs did not like the Jewish immigration, since they justifiably were afraid of loosing their country. So a struggle was developed between the 2 national movements, the Jews and the Arabs. Attempts to depict Zionism as the pure evil, may eventually result in more wars and struggle. In order to advance to a better future for both sides, we have to avoid descriptive (and wrong) adjectives like "exclusivism, xenophobia, racism, " and concentrate in facts. Both sides have their share of wrong doing, and both sides have to admit those facts, as a prerequisite to a stable compromise. Ykantor (talk) 20:17, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

DearYuvn86 and Ykantor,

There is no such thing as a monolithic political/cultural movement (except the ones having one person membership). Zionism was multifaceted too, but almost all of its representative members were devoted to the creation of a Jewish nation state. Even the premier document of the Zionist movement, Herzl’s book was titled “Der Judenstaat”.

Meaningful discourse is impossible without objectivity. I try to adhere strictly to this principle. I have no intent to harass Jews or console Palestinians. I aim simply for honesty.

"...Ben-Gurion rose to the challenge with a new doctrine for national management - mamlachtiyut - or 'statism'. In essence, the concept suggested that in this new stage of Jewish history, the role of individuals and voluntary organisations in determining the fate of the Jews (as had been the case during the yishuv years) would be taken over by the impersonal state and the bureaucracy. Thus he would be able to 'transform a voluntary, idea-oriented, social movement into a tool capable of forging reality'. Mamlachtiyut had various dimensions. As well as the operative aspects which saw the state apparatus assuming dominance over the political system, concentrating political power and subordinating particularistic interest to those of the nation-state as a whole, there where symbolic and cultural aspects which located the state at the centre of the emerging Israeli identity." Clive Jones, Emma C. Murphy: Israel: Challenges to Identity, Democracy and the State. 2005. p.19-20.

In fact this doctrine was not new; it was invented by Shōwa era Japan as a kind of state socialism, by Mussolini and Hitler as fascism and national socialism.

"The problems associated with reconciling the creation of a national identity around which the population could homogenise, with democracy, found expression particularly in the treatment of the non-Jewish population. Despite the Zionist leadership's efforts to precipitate an evacuation of the country's Arab population during the military campaign, the conclusion of the war saw 156,000 Arabs remaining in the new state. The democratic values that were supposed to act as the norms for the new state required that they be afforded citizenship, with equal rights as the Jewish population. Yet two problems arose, one practical and the other essentially philosophical but with practical dimensions. Security considerations led political leaders to assume that the Arab minority represented an internal threat. Thus their status and conditions had to be circumscribed to prevent them from subverting the state. For the immediate term, military rule was imposed over areas with Arab majority populations (officially in 1950 although bit came into effect in 1948). Arabs could be arrested, detained, prevented from moving freely, and otherwise effectively controlled without recourse to legal protection. A vast amount of Arab-owned land was either declared 'closed' or was expropriated by the state, for redistribution among the Jewish population as part of the 'inalienable Jewish patrimony'. Freedom of speech, protest and political organisation were curtailed, and the Arab population was actively prevented from communicating with other Arab political forces outside the state. Formal and informal discrimination was actively practised in government policies towards education, expenditure, employment and economic development, with priority always going towards developing the Jewish infrastructure and Jewish opportunities, even at the cost of provision for the Arab population. The dilemma was how to preserve democratic meaning in the institutions and policies of a state which was intended to be Jewish but which included a significant non-Jewish population. In the end, Israel has in practical terms become what has been described as an 'ethno-democracy' - a political entity that observes full democratic practices for the ethnic majority of the population but only partial democracy for the rest." Clive Jones, Emma C. Murphy: Israel: Challenges to Identity, Democracy and the State. p.25-26.

"There have been numerous reports from reliable sources of large-scale looting, pillaging and plundering, and of instances of destruction of villages without apparent military necessity. The liability of the Provisional Government of Israel to restore private property to its Arab owners and to indemnify those owners for property wantonly destroyed is clear, irrespective of any indemnities which the Provisional Government may claim from the Arab States." PROGRESS REPORT OF THE UNITED NATIONS MEDIATOR ON PALESTINE SUBMITTED TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL FOR TRANSMISSION TO THE MEMBERS OF THE UNITED NATIONS. Part 1. The Mediation Effort. V.Refugees. 7.

I agree with you: it is all about facts.

Have a nice day,

Maghasito

--Maghasito (talk) 02:19, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Showing only one side of the coin is not facts or honesty. You still ignore the question of Pan-Arabism, irredentism, that Zionists fought against, especially in the 1948 war with the invading armies of Egypt, Syria, Jordan etc. Arab nationalism is not colonialism or irredentism at all to you? Yuvn86 (talk) 03:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Dear Yuvn86,

I added these words to the lead: irredentist, reestablishment, Jewish nation state, historic. And I added the relevant scientific sources. I ended up in this lengthy debate, and the edits were reverted. My sources support my edits.

I do not ignore the question of Arab behaviour, but now we talk about Zionism and Israeli behaviour in the context of the article on Zionism. For our purpose - of classing Zionism in scientific terms - it is irrelevant whether Zionist Jewish/Israeli policies are acceptable and understandable morally or intellectually or not.

Have a nice day,

Maghasito

--Maghasito (talk) 10:39, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Jones& Murphy book is clearly sided. for instance:

- "the Arab population was actively prevented from communicating with other Arab political forces outside the state". This is correct but fail to say that because of security considerations, all Israeli citizens (Jews and Arabs) were not permitted to contact anyone in the neighboring Arab (enemy) states, that talked openly about a second round in which Israel will be destroyed. Is it unusual for a country to stop communication with an enemy state?

- "Arabs could be arrested, detained, prevented from moving freely, and otherwise effectively controlled without recourse to legal protection." . This is correct but fails to say what percentage of the Arabs were actually arrested, detained etc. without legal protection. I guess that this percentage was indeed extremely small. As I recall, during this time the Arab states public viewed the Israeli Arabs as collaborators, since they generally tried to return to normal life and avoided clashing with the Israeli authorities.

- It seems that Jones& Murphy book purpose is to convey a message that the Israeli regime is a sort of barbaric Nazi regime, while ignoring facts that does not fit into this thesis. e.g. Babies mortality or illiteracy that were dramatically improved relatively to the previous Mandate era or the neighboring Arab states. Is that a result of an oppressive Nazi regime?

As said previously, your sources support irredentism for the past only. Ykantor (talk) 17:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I think that Ykantor gets the point for Jones Murphy's book.

Pluto2012 (talk) 21:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Dear Hertz1888

I presented more than one reliable source describing Zionism as an irredentist movement. I based my edits on these sources. My edit was questioned, so I argued in favour of it in the talks, in an objective way. Developing scientific consensus through discourse with people who are – for the most part – unable to detach themselves emotionally from the subject at hand and to approach it rationally is hard, if not futile. It is all the sadder in a supposedly scientific and objective environ like Wikipedia, because – unfortunately – rational discourse is the sole way to reaching consensus.

"For all Zionist leaders and most Zionist intellectuals, it was more convenient to imagine themselves not as conquerors of foreign lands but as saviours of the Land of Israel, which had always been theirs." In: SAND, Shlomo: The Invention of the Land of Israel: From Holy Land to Homeland. Verso Books. 2012. p.224.

We have reached some kind of consensus in regard of pre 1948 Zionism, that is: Zionism was an irredentist movement, aiming for the establishment of a Jewish nation-state in Palestine. So this has its place in the lead.

"Secular Zionism had a nationalist premiss: without a territory of their own, the Jews could not become a proper 'people' - like the English, French, Germans, Greeks, Italians, Irish, Poles, or Czechs. The Zionist idea was predicated on the principle of national self-determination as famously articulated by U.S. President Wilson after the First World War. But Zionism also drew heavily on the eschatological ideas embedded in Jewish religious tradition. Redemption meant the physical return of Jews to the Land of Israel - a sacred territory promised to their Hebrew ancestor Abraham by God. Redemption conveys both secular and religious meanings. Irredentism - the urge to restore unredeemed land to the nation - was an important component of the nationalist movements, including fascism and Nazism, that emerged in Europe after the First World War. Non-religious Zionism shares with fascism the idea that a particular piece of territory belongs inalienably to one nation: in this respect, there is no essential difference in kind between Zionist claims on Palestine and, say, the Italian irredentist claims on the port of Fiume on the Dalmatian coast, a part of the formerly Venetian territory awarded to Yugoslavia after the First World War." in: RUTHVEN, Malise: Fundamentalism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press. 2007. p.96.

"Even before Herzl's utopian novel was published, the Rabbi (Rabbi Kook) had published the first of three articles which anticipated the later orthodoxy of Religious Zionism. He claimed, not only that the creation of the State of Israel in Palestine was the fulfilment of certain prophecies in the Torah, but that the irredentism of Political Zionism contained, unbeknown to them, a divine Jewish spark which Religious Zionists would one day turn 'into a great light', a subtle appropriation of secular Jewish irredentism." in: GRIFFIN, Roger: Terrorist's Creed: Fanatical Violence and the Human Need for Meaning. Palgrave Macmillan. 2012. p.128.

"Europe had learned before, during and particularly after the War, the full significance of Irredentism (invented but unfortunately not copyrighted by Italy): practical Zionism, or Irredentism to the nth, was new to most and stood alone." in: STORRS, Ronald: Lawrence of Arabia Zionism and Palestine. Penguin Books. 1940. p.44.

"The ground had been laid in Balfour's mind a decade before the Declaration when, as prime minister, his curiosity was piqued by the Zionists' rejection of Chamberlain's offer of East Africa. His curiosity led him to a fateful meeting with Weizmann and to an understanding of Palestine irredentism." in: TUCHMAN, Barbara W.: Bible and Sword: England and Palestine from the Bronze Age to Balfour. Random House. 2014. Chapter XVII. p.267.

And the book by Hinnebusch.

Dear Ykantor, the book of Clive Jones and Emma C. Murphy is quite objective and factual, and the authors were very cautious in wording of the text. They do not judge over Jewish/Zionist/Israeli policies and actions, just describe them. The oppressive Bolshevik Communist regime of the USSR was successful in eliminating illiteracy and improved public health considerably too.

Have a nice day,

Maghasito

--Maghasito (talk) 17:26, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

If Jones& Murphy book is supposedly objective, how come that they use blatant and misleading anti Zionist propaganda, like in the 2 cases mentioned previously? Ykantor (talk) 20:21, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

@Maghasito: Per WP:BURDEN is up to the editor making an edit and not the one reverting it to reach consensus that the edit is correct and DUE. This did not happen in this discussion. It's one thing to say that some researches consider zionism to be a form of irredentism, it's quite another to claim as a fact in the lead that it is so. You wanted a source refuting irredentism claims, here is one: "Zionism was not in the slightest an irredentist idea". “WarKosign” 11:53, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

From The Jews in Polish Culture, the sentence quoted ... and the one following: "Zionism was not in the slightest an irredentist idea. It had not intention of taking away a part of Polish territory; its idea was that the Jews would emigrate from Poland."     ←   ZScarpia   12:22, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2014

A link to a highly related documentary: (The Whole Story Of Zionist Conspiracy) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QH_Bs-pN46s 80.217.201.113 (talk) 02:43, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

 Not done: I don't believe this meets the standards for external links: see WP:YOUTUBE. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 03:29, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Edit request

Quick grammar edit for the very last section (Anti-zionism) which I would have made but am not an established user:

Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein, Michael Marder, and Tariq Ali have suggested that the characterization of anti-Zionism as anti-Semitic is inaccurate, sometimes obscures legitimate criticism of Israel's policies and actions, and is sometimes a political ploy to stifle criticism of Israel.

I would recommend adding have the word "and" after the comma. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rakejooney (talk • contribs) 19:26, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2015

I think it would be helpful to make the words "forced exodus of Palestinians" in the last sentence of the introduction into a hyperlink that direct to the article "1948 Palestinian exodus" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Palestinian_exodus 2601:140:8301:F11F:3963:6579:A1AE:4CE8 (talk) 06:20, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Done. “WarKosign” 06:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

In the Preface

It's NOT TRUE/RIGHT th say that: "Zionism emerged in the late 19th century in central and eastern Europe as a national revival movement, and soon after this most leaders of the movement associated the main goal with creating the desired state in Palestine, then an area controlled by the Ottoman Empire."

Zionism is a movement that started from the destruction of the 2nd Temple. Many of the world's Jews, through the ages, fought and tried to take actions In order to promote the Zionist goal - To return of the Jews to their Homeland; Israel (Canaan / Palestine/ Judea and Samaria...) - Not only the Jews from Europe but also many Jews from Iraq, Iran, Aosebksitan, North Africa and so on... fought for it befor and after tht 19th century...

The Right and Correct thing to say is: "Zionism is an idea and a movement started with the destruction of the 2nd jewish Temple in Jerusalem, aimed at the return of the Jews to their homeland. The Zionist movement was suppressed and weakened throughout the years till the 19th century when the Zionist movement as we know it today emerged. The 19th century Zionist movement innovation was a combination of the Secularism and Nationalism. The movement in the 19th century gained momentum and strengthened, in view of the rising anti-Semitism all around the world, in most of the Jewish world. Especially in Europe but also in the rest of the Jewish World, including the Jews who lived in the Muslim and the Arab Countries."

pls fix, thanks :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.57.144.175 (talk • contribs) 10:38, 19 December 2014‎

Do you have a source for this? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

A source like the Passover Hagada? ZIONISM is Judiasm. It is a KEY jewish tenant. There are sections upon sections upon sections of Jewish Law and Talmud concerned with the status of land in Israel. Jewish Law says Jews are not allowed to leave the land of Israel except under specific conditions. What are you asking for, proof of a round world or that bannanas are yellow or that Jews will return to Israel. They have done this in every generation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.57.23.82 (talk) 04:53, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Originated or expelled

@Dailycare, Editor2020, and Johnmcintyre1959: out of the 3 sources, one says "settlers were imbued with the idea of returning to the old-new land, to a specific national territorial goal" and the second says "that Jews had a deep and vital historical connection to the land was essential to asserting the right to resettle in it" - nothing about Jews originating in the land, only about returning (presumably after being expelled). Do you have a source that supports your new statement about Jews originating in the Land of Israel ?“WarKosign” 21:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

We know that the expulsion of Jews from Palestine is a myth. Do you dispute that Jews, at least partly, originated there? I note that none of your sources uses the term "expelled". If you prefer, I'm OK with saying "left" instead of "originated", although I don't see the difference. For me the beef is that the text shouldn't give the impression Jews were expelled. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 10:45, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Really? A myth like this => http://www.digitaljournal.com/img/8/4/3/0/8/3/i/2/1/1/p-large/stone-4.JPG 96.57.23.82 (talk) 05:02, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

That sentence is describing what Zionists think, so it doesn't matter if it's a myth or not (and it's much less of a myth than you'd like it to be, but that's neither here nor there). You don't get to push your POV on other people's thoughts. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I am very happy that "you know" that the expulsion of Jews from Judea was a myth, but your personal opinion, unrelated to the facts, is of no interest to us. Benjil (talk) 16:18, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Please don't tell me what I know. Or maybe it was a royal we ? Your personal opinions are irrelevant. Here we go by sources, and while you may not like it, the sources say that the Zionists were motivated by the Jewish diaspora. “WarKosign” 17:24, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't even understand the logic of your question. This is a false dichotomy. There is no contradiction between the fact that the jews originated from there and wanted to return to it after having been expelled/exterminated/ and forced to leave by the Romans. Benjil (talk) 20:55, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm also OK with saying "motivated by the diaspora", although that seems less faithful to the cited sources than "originating" or "left". Concerning the myth of exile, it is not my personal opinion but the consensus opinion of serious historical scholarship in the matter:
♥No Return, No Refuge (Howard Adelman, Elazar Barkan, p. 159): "in the popular imagination of Jewish history, in contrast to the accounts of historians or official agencies, there is a widespread notion that the Jews from Judea were expelled in antiquity after the destruction of the temple and the "Great Rebellion" (70 and 135 CE, respectively). Even more misleading, there is the widespread, popular belief that this expulsion created the diaspora."
♥Although the myth of an exile from the Jewish homeland (Palestine) does exist in popular Israeli culture, it is negligible in serious Jewish historical discussions.(Israel Bartal, dean of humanities at the Hebrew University) --Dailycare (talk) 07:34, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

"In the popular imagination of Jewish history ... there is a widespread notion that the Jews from Judea were expelled in antiquity". This source supports the current statement in the lead perfectly, regardless of correctness of this notion. “WarKosign” 08:07, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

If you are speaking about the idea that the Diaspora started at the time of the destruction of the Temple, of course this is a myth, and a Christian one, not a Jewish one (Jews were perfectly aware of this fact). Many Jews, probably the majority, already lived in Diaspora at the time. Regarding the Jews that did live in Judea at the time, many were slaughtered during the wars with Rome, in fact, most of them as Cassius Dio wrote after the Bar Kokhva revolt and as shown by archeology and other testimonies. Many were taken as slaves (around 100,000 according to Josephus) during the first war; Many of the remaining Jews left after, because of the ongoing persecutions, special taxes, land grabbing etc... Benjil (talk) 08:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

WarKosign, that source doesn't discuss "advocates of Zionism" or "national liberation movement" at all, so no, the source doesn't support the statement. --Dailycare (talk) 13:37, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Theodore Herzl and Political Zionism

Theodore Herzl, “the practical dreamer,” could be called the most impressive and inspiring figure of the 20th century by many Americans because he repudiated the pervasive belief that Jews were nothing more than nomadic moneylenders, and in doing so he laid the cornerstone of the State of Israel. Though he was born in the 19th century (1860), his influence was possibly the most prominent in the 20th century when the state of Israel was established. Herzl’s view stems from his personal history. Herzl witnessed anti-Jewish rallies in Hungary following the Dreyfus trial, and he realized that anti-Semitism could not be defeated, but only escaped. In 1896 he declared in his pamphlet “Der Judenstaat” that although Jews “have sincerely tried to merge with the national communities”… “We are still decried as aliens."<Herzl, Theodor. 1968. Der Judenstaat. Osnabrück: O. Zeller.> By not trying to assimilate, he challenged the status quo and planted the seed that change was necessary.

Herzl organized movements and raised extraordinary amounts of money in order to establish a state for the Jews. He organized the first World Zionist Organization. His witness to horrible Anti- Semitism during the Dreyfus pushed his commitment to establishing a state of Israel. He believed that Jews were people bound by the same fate rather than faith itself.

Herzl believed that Anti Semitism could be easily solved. He believed that the causes of anti Semitism were also easily explained. Herzl explained that Jews had become middle class in the ghetto and had become a Bourgeoisie people that were then thrust into emancipation. He believed that Jews were bound together by a common fate. His thought process on solving Anti Semitism was to create a Jewish society where there would be no competition between Jews and Gentiles and thus Jews would be the majority<Alan T. Levenson, An Introduction to Modern Jewish Thinkers: From Spinoza to Soloveitchik, 2nd ed. (Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield, 2006))><p. 103-116>. Herzl was essentially creating a “state of Jews”, which is ironic because Der Judenstadt can essentially be translated into “A Jewish State”. He believed a safe place for Jews was the only solution. He did not believe assimilation was possible because anti Semitism does not let people for get they are Jews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayeletshipley (talk • contribs) 18:50, 10 December 2015 (UTC)