Talk:Zionism/Archive 39

Archive 35

←

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Short description

Which short description exceeds more than 60 characters. Currently, only 2% of short descriptions are longer than 60 characters. Absolutiva 13:32, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Moving "as few Arabs"

Starting a discussion on whether to move though broadly, Zionists wanted to create a Jewish state in Palestine with as much land, as many Jews, and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible.[4] from the first paragraph to the fourth paragraph after Zionist views have varied over time and are not uniform, resulting in a variety of types of Zionism.[15]. I don't believe the sentence is so key as to add it as a dog tail to the end of the first (rump) paragraph. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 14:30, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

agreed, there were similar murmurs during the moratorium Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 22:09, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

I oppose this. It's best right up front. Simonm223 (talk) 22:16, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Actually I think it fits better in the 2nd paragraph, it's pretty coatracky atm Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 22:20, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Based on the present version of the 2nd paragraph, where would you insert it? -- Cdjp1 (talk) 11:30, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

After "historic homeland" in the 2nd paragraph, or after "local population" in the 3rd. The sources cited are all talking about early leadership or 1948, so anywhere where it’s in the historical context is fine by me Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 13:05, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

I have major issues with the line in general, but think Cdjp1 (talk)'s suggestion of the top of the fourth paragraph just after the 'Zionist views' part makes much more sense structurally. Davefelmer (talk) 04:01, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

I oppose. it was a crucial part of their project and the root cause of all the problems that followed. M.Bitton (talk) 22:36, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

I support. I do not agree that it was "a crucial part of their project”, which is an interesting choice of phrase. It is certainly true that many early Zionists — Ben Gurion, Herzl - did not think this. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:19, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Are you sure about that?

Ben-Gurion:

Ben-Gurion, the architect of the Nakba, had long advocated for “compulsory transfer.” In 1937, he established a Committee on Population Transfer within the Jewish Agency. And, of course, transfer, a euphemism for ethnic cleansing, was in fact carried out at a mass level in 1948 and again in 1967.

Herzl wrote in an 1895:

We must expropriate gently the private property on the estates assigned to us. We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it any employment in our country. The property owners will come over to our side. Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly,..

M.Bitton (talk) 23:29, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Penslar writes: "Ben-Gurion assumed Palestine would become a Jewish–Arab federation until a prolonged Palestinian Arab revolt in the mid to late 1930s convinced him that this was impossible."

That second quote, as is written, doesn't say that there should be "as few Arabs as possible." אקעגן (talk) 20:36, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

What pronouns do you suggest might be acceptable when referring to Zionists? This is a disgraceful insinuation of antisemitism without any evidence to support it.--Boynamedsue (talk) 07:37, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

@Boynamedsue, who are you responding to? Your comment doesn't make a lot of sense to me given that it is under MarkBernstein's comment. TarnishedPath^talk 09:15, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath: they are commenting on what MarkBernstein's seems to be suggesting with regard to the use of "their" (that they put in italics). M.Bitton (talk) 13:09, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

@MarkBernstein, can you please clarify the meaning behind your italicising of "their" and what you mean by stating that it is "an interesting choice of phrase"? TarnishedPath^talk 13:19, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

I italicized their as a quotation because I feared that “quotation” marks in this context might be taken as scare quotes. The phrase “a crucial part of their project and the root cause of all the problems that followed” does, to my ear, read rather differently than (for example) “a crucial part of the Zionist project” or “a crucial part of Herzl’s project”. Discussions here sometimes ignore differences of position and era, and it was my opinion that in his brief comment M. Bitton elided a diversity of opinions and historical circumstance. I expressed myself poorly. (I am up to my elbows in Thucydides at present.) Further, @Boynamedsue alerted me on my talk page that my italicization might be taken as a reference to the ZOG conspiracy theory, which I neither anticipated nor intended, and which I regret. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:08, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

I am currently writings Jewish cultural revival and New Jew (in short). I think parts of what's written there should be added to the body and subsequently replace this sentence's position in the lead. But until I finish the articles I think this is ideal.

I disagree with MarkBernstein. Jewish majority was important to Zionism. NorthernWinds (talk) 23:45, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Oppose. It's best up front given Nakba's ongoing impact, most obviously on the ongoing conflict. TarnishedPath^talk 00:12, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Ps, a reminder to all participatns here that the current wording and that it be in the lead is current consensus per this RFC which had 33 participants and 144 comments. While this discussion may be useful WP:RFCBEFORE, any change will likely need a new WP:RFC. TarnishedPath^talk 00:48, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

For my part I am aware that it would need a full RFC, but I do not have the will to prepare a fully formal one at the moment, so I've just started this discussion to receive input and see whether there is the appetite from others to push this as a RFC. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 11:26, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Even if we started an RFC with a proposal about the location in the lead, and even if that proposal was successful—which I doubt—this discussion would not end. External parties will continue to encourage their audiences to edit this article in a way that benefits Israel’s image. TarnishedPath^talk 12:47, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

While that is true, any from individual editors who are not XC will simply be dealt with as has been the case, that is, closing such requests as the RFC does and would take precedence. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 14:37, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Support. This is not a fundamental, widespread tenet that describes Zionism as a movement, as Zionist organizations like Brit Shalom (political organization) demonstrate. It deserves no place in the lede. אקעגן (talk) 14:23, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

As others have pointed out we've done this many times. In the moratorium era we haven't seen any significant new research come out suggesting that the pre-existing consensus (based on a plurality of RS) is inaccurate or less important now than it was previously. Smallangryplanet (talk) 17:42, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Did the RfC address the importance of the sentence? NorthernWinds (talk) 20:58, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm not going to get bogged down in semantics about "importance" but yes, it was about if it should be included in the lead and body and discussed this at substantial length. Smallangryplanet (talk) 17:27, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

This proposal is not about removing it from the lead or body but about where in the lead it should go so this objection is irrelevant BobFromBrockley (talk) 02:37, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Support per @אקעגן. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 17:56, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Should this be made into an RfC? VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 21:16, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

What exactly would be the question? TarnishedPath^talk 21:24, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

"Should the phrase 'as few Arabs as possible' be moved to a later section in the article that talks about the various factions of Zionism?" VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 23:02, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

@VidanaliK correct me if I'm wrong but that would be a proposal to move it completely out of the lead? If so perhaps best to be explicit about that in the question, also about where exactly it would move to. Personally I don't think that sort of question would have much chance of success given the previous RFC outcome. I think proposals about the location in the lead, depending on the specifics, may have better chances. TarnishedPath^talk 23:11, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

OK, so add in "moved out of the lede to a later section in the article…". VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 23:26, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Or it could be altered to being moved out of the first paragraph or given context as to for exactly whom this is a priority. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 23:27, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

OK, so instead "Should the phrase 'as few Arabs as possible' be moved to a later section in the lede that talks about the various factions of Zionism?" VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 18:10, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I would think something like that would be more likely to get support than a proposal to move it out of the lead completely. I'm not saying that I would support it, but others may. TarnishedPath^talk 23:13, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

The sources currently cited in the article would not support associating "as few Arabs as possible" with factions. Surtsicna (talk) 23:41, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose per M.Bitton and Onceinawhile. إيان (talk) 03:18, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

@Cdjp1 Isn't this sort of already functioning as an RfC? If so then shouldn't it be made into one? Wikieditor662 (talk) 21:51, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

OK, I'll add the RfC tag at the top and add it to the request-ticket system. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 00:02, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

@VidanaliK, that is not the correct way to start an RFC. If you're going to do it, please do it correctly. Please read WP:RFC, paying particular attention to WP:RFCBRIEF. TarnishedPath^talk 00:05, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Without it the sentence would be Zionists wanted to create a Jewish state in Palestine with as much land and as many Jews as possible. This misses the point about the core desire a clear Jewish majority – noone would deny that a Jewish majority was and remains the goal. The problem was (and still is) that there weren’t and still aren’t enough Jews within the “as much land” area to form a clear majority, hence the oppression of Palestinians for the last 100+ years.

Unless this core dynamic can be explained in another way, I oppose its remove or subordination. It is the very core of the entire Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:15, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that Zionists oppressed Palestinians back when the Ottomans/British ruled? NorthernWinds (talk) 00:18, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes. I suggest you read about the policies of Herbert Samuel, the first British High Commissioner, and his memorandum The Future of Palestine. Or the reaction to the Sursock Purchases, not because of the purchases per se, but the treatment of the farmers. Or perhaps try watching a modern rendition of the mandate period such as Palestine 36. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:24, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't watch narrative films, I prefer reading narrative books.

Anyways, the word "oppression" in its variations appears once in the article Sursock Purchases, in a complaint by the farmers. I suggest that you read the article more in detail: Although they were not legally owed any compensation, the evicted tenants (1,746 Arab farmer families comprising 8,730 persons in the largest group of purchases), were compensated with $17 per person (approx. $300 in 2024 dollars).

Evicting the farmer was, as is commonly said, "fair and square," indiscriminately and as allowed by the law. Morally acceptable? No, in my opinion. Oppressive? no. The farmers were not persecuted. Seems like your research. NorthernWinds (talk) 00:34, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

@NorthernWinds: Not only did I read that article in detail, I wrote it. I doubt the 10 minutes between my comment above and your response gave you much time for detailed reading. If it had, you might have noticed details such as: Through the 1930s, dispossessed fellahin made their way to the coast in search of work, with most ending up in shanty towns on the edges of Jaffa and Haifa. From idyllic country life to the slums.

The other core element of the conflict is intra-Zionist propaganda creating a situation where supporters fail to recognize how badly Palestinians have been treated, and instead choose to imagine that Palestinian anti-Zionism was motivated by irrational antisemitism. This missing information causes the cognitive dissonance between the two sides.

There is so much more detail on the 100+ year oppression of Palestinians, but you would need to want to learn rather than defending against such suggestions. If you like narrative reading, try Khalidi's The Hundred Years' War on Palestine.

Onceinawhile (talk) 00:47, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile I am not “defending” anything; I do not see this as a debate or argument but rather as a discussion.

To the point: I am familiar with the matter beyond the article’s contents, my skim confirmed this. Your details still do not offer backing to the usage of the term “oppression.”

Also, now after reading it thoroughly, it seems to me like a great article; you've done a good job.

I can add this book to my list, though I view him as a historian rather than an advocate. I have read one of his books and am quite fond of it.

I think this second paragraph you wrote better describes modern times than pre-Israel Zionism. Interestingly, one of the main ideologues of the Yishuv, Ber Borochov, in his ignorance, suggested that the Arabs believed that the land belong to the Jews and that they will eventually assimilate. Ussishkin viewed it political opposition. So did Itzhak Ben-Zvi, Ben Gurion and countless others. Perhaps the only exception (or one of the few exceptions) to this is Joseph Weitz. He was a big time racist so it shouldn't come as a surprise that in his diaries he sometimes compared the situation of some of the Jews in Palestine to German Jewry, though he never drew parallels between the two as a whole. Still, he never explicitly wrote that their opposition is driven by antisemitism (beyond specific incidents). Surprisingly, he did say that transfers should be done within an agreement (1938), but at this point we're way of topic NorthernWinds (talk) 13:00, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, it’d be better to say something like "as many Jews as a percentage of the total population as possible" Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 00:20, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

These are all different ways to say "majority" NorthernWinds (talk) 00:21, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

By Nakba. إيان (talk) 03:15, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

The only way I can think of explaining it in another way is to bring summarisation of nakba and zionism being inseperable into the first paragraph. TarnishedPath^talk 00:20, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

If done dispassionately, that could be good, and actually educational. I think part of the issue w the current version is that it implies anti-Palestinianism is fundamental to Zionism, when it’s more a secondary aspect related to the desire for a predominantly Jewish state Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 13:07, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

I disagree. The main impact would likely be excluding the line from search-summaries. This is contrary to providing education on nakba. Simonm223 (talk) 13:25, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

I would've thought linking to Nakba in the first para for reader's to learn more would be better, but this article is about providing education on zionism. This is how it became a coatrack (ie. loss of focus) in the first place because people weren't focussed on the topic but on making a point Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 13:30, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

But "as few Arabs as possible" is indeed fundamental to Zionism. I do not think we can define Zionism without it, and its current placement at the end of the lead paragraph seems ideal. In fact, the wording "as few Arabs as possible" is already significantly subdued in comparison with some of the cited (and quoted) sources, e.g. Benny Morris's "Palestine would not be transformed into a Jewish state unless all or much of the Arab population was expelled." Surtsicna (talk) 13:40, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Fundamental is narrower than defining imo (the latter is the language of MOS:OPEN). If the sentence was explicitly on Zionism rather than starting Zionists wanted, that'd at least be an improvement. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 14:13, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

It's not necessarily fundamental, at least not today. The definition of Zionism on Wiktionary is Jewish nationalism, i.e. the support for the establishment and maintaining of a Jewish state in the Palestine region (referring to what is now Israel). Even one of the sources for that statement explains that it is only ipso facto "as few Arabs as possible". And as @אקעגן mentioned, there are several variations of Zionism. While some do argue for an Arab minority, that's not a core tenet. We can indeed define Zionism without it: "Zionism is an ethnocultural nationalist movement with the goal of founding and maintaining a Jewish homeland in the Palestine region, roughly corresponding with the biblical Land of Israel, itself central to Jewish history." That's it. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 23:50, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

It is the duty of Israeli leaders to explain to public opinion, clearly and courageously, a certain number of facts that are forgotten with time. The first of these is that there is no Zionism, colonialization, or Jewish State without the eviction of the Arabs and the expropriation of their lands. _ Ariel Sharon (1998)

It has always been fundamental. Even today, there are still talks of displacing the Palestinians, when they are not forcibly displaced or killed (see the latest news). M.Bitton (talk) 00:02, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

That is the statement of a single right-wing Israeli politician who was found to bear personal responsibility for the Sabra and Shatila massacre, which was condemned by the Israeli government itself. I don't think he can speak for all Israelis/Zionists. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 00:08, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

While your point that Sharon does not represent every Israeli/Zionist is valid, he is not a fringe figure. His views and conduct were incredibly popular with the Israeli public. EvansHallBear (talk) 01:05, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Sure. His views are definitely popular with those Israelis. That is also a valid point. However, the point I am making is he doesn't represent the general concept of Zionism, and wanting to get rid of Arabs is not a core tenet of Zionism itself, which is why I'm saying that it shouldn't be in the lede. I didn't mean to present him as a fringe figure, but he's definitely not universal either. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 01:20, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Ariel Sharon is not Golda Meir, nor Amos Oz, nor Fania Oz-Salzberger. Many Zionists aspired to a multicultural state with a Jewish majority. MarkBernstein (talk) 00:09, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

The ongoing Nakba and the Gaza genocide didn't happen by accident. M.Bitton (talk) 00:10, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

The Gaza genocide is still heavily contested and not a useful example, especially because very few Zionists or Israeli politicians both affirm and justify the allegations of genocide. The position is either "it's not a genocide, and we would condemn it if it were" or "it is a genocide, and we condemn it". It's mostly Likud members that justify what is going on in Gaza. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 00:22, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

And the Nakba is not ongoing by most definitions. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 00:23, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Have you considered raising that issue on the Ongoing Nakba page? Drsmartypants(Smarty M.D) (talk) 17:02, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Even that page doesn't treat it as fact. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 17:28, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

The article needs to concern the practical Zionists. Creation of a Jewish state was always impossible without the transfer of the bulk of the indigenous population, despite some people dressing up the Arabs in biblical costumes for photo shoots every now and again. The people who wanted an Israel without ethnic cleansing were on the same level of political realism as people who wanted the Virgin Mary to institute socialism. They don't get a mention in the opening paragraph of Socialism.--Boynamedsue (talk) 07:37, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

That's not true, nor does it imply that reducing the number of Arabs is an intrinsic goal of the movement.

Morris: The early Zionists had been aware of the Arab presence in the country—there were just under half a million around 1882, the year the first Zionists came ashore in Jaffa. And there were, at the time, some twenty-five thousand Jews in the country. But the Zionists anticipated that with gradual or, perhaps, abrupt mass immigration (my emphasis), the Jews would eventually become the majority. He writes also: But although the transfer idea periodically gripped the imagination of this or that Zionist stalwart during 1882–1936, it was never adopted as a goal or policy platform by the Zionist movement or any of the main Zionist political parties, not then and not later.

Buber, Magnes were binationalist Zionists. Hashomer Hatza‘ir, Brit Shalom, Agudat Ihud, and others were binationalist Zionist organizations. אקעגן (talk) 15:49, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

From the same book: For their part, the early Zionist settlers did not see themselves as protagonists in a drama of contending nationalisms or as rivals for the land. Like European settlers elsewhere in the colonial world, they saw the natives as objects, as part of the scenery, or as bothersome brigands, certainly not as nationalist antagonists. And as Zionists, they took it as self-evident that the Land of Israel belonged to the Jews and to no one else. Mayhaps we ought to replace "a Jewish state in Palestine with as much land, as many Jews, and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible" with "as large a state in Palestine as possible, belonging solely to Jews"? Hmm. Surtsicna (talk) 22:51, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Again, this refers to a very specific period of time in the early periods of Zionism. He literally says "early Zionist settlers". This is late 1800s and is being generalised in the current lede. The quotes you are citing are referring to principles that did exist in certain periods of time but are not consistent throughout history and therefore are not useful in defining the term "Zionism". VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 23:00, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

He says "as Zionists". Not "as early Zionists". "As Zionists, they took it as self-evident that the Land of Israel belonged to the Jews and to no one else."

Thankfully we have plenty of other sources–including Morris's other publications–that state clearly that the principle of "as few Arabs as possible" is at the core of Zionism so we do not have to debate on what Morris wanted to say in that particular paragraph. Surtsicna (talk) 23:18, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

As Zionists, they wanted a Jewish state. That they thought the Land belonged to the Jews doesn't mean that they thought there should be "as few Arabs as possible." אקעגן (talk) 03:06, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Exactly. And that is manifested today by the simple fact that 20% of Israel's population is Arab and there are plenty of politicians (though mostly left and centre-left) that have no problem with them being there, and are still Zionists. If it were ever universal, it was for a short period of time in the early part of Zionism's history. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 16:41, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

First, WP:OR. Second, this proves nothing. It says "Zionists wanted," not "Zionists want."

Opinions can change over the span of a hundred years NorthernWinds (talk) 19:00, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

It says "Zionists wanted" but also does so in the first paragraph, which is supposed to define it. This is the reason for the proposal for moving "as few Arabs" to a place that can discuss specific factions and historical periods. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 19:01, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Don't waste your time convincing the convinced. Also per MOS:LEAD: In Wikipedia, the lead section is an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents NorthernWinds (talk) 20:36, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Oh, whoops! And also, thanks for pointing out the MOS:LEAD thing, I must have misunderstood from looking at a bunch of Wikipedia articles; Maybe at least the first paragraph is a definition? VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 20:38, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

That 20% of Israel's population is Arab does not mean that "as few Arabs as possible" does not define Zionism. On the contrary. Also, we seem to be past discussing sources here and engaging in a WP:NOTAFORUM discussion. Surtsicna (talk) 20:22, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

It is true that we are engaging in a WP:NOTAFORUM discussion. I'm just pointing out that the actions and statements of several Zionists and Israeli politicians today, as well as several other writings that have been sourced before (not just by Morris!) show that the principle of having as few Arabs as possible is not necessarily universal, nor should it be used to define. I rest my case there. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 20:36, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Some of these Zionists are Martin Buber and Judah L. Magnes, as quoted by @NorthernWinds below. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 20:37, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Oh, these Zionists had more to say for sure! Also I think I misattributed the quotes in the comment you linked. Fixed now.

M. Buber & J. L. Magnes on behalf of Ihud: The bi-national Palestine would deprive the Jews of their one chance of a Jewish State. But this bi-national Palestine would be the one State in the world where they would be a constituent nation, i.e. an equal nationality within the body politic, and not a minority as everywhere else. (my emphasis) NorthernWinds (talk) 20:53, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Nevermind, you didn't link. Anyways all is fixed now and I changed it to a different quote that says the exact same thing. NorthernWinds (talk) 21:02, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Who is Ihud? VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 21:04, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

@VidanaliK I've wikilinked your comment so you can check it out :p

Also there's another really sweet quote of them on my user page but we're going offtopic here NorthernWinds (talk) 21:12, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

@NorthernWinds Oh thanks! VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 21:26, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Also I don't think your quote on your user page is offtopic: the quote, "What a boon [blessing] to mankind it would be if the Jews and the Arabs of Palestine were to strive together to make their Holy Land into a thriving, peaceful Switzerland situated at the heart of this ancient highway between East and West." actually also supports the Ihud supporting a binational state. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 21:27, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is disputing that they do; it's their purpose. On this topic this quote may be more helpful. It comes immediatly after my user page quote: A ‘‘Palestine Solution” is required for the Palestine problem. This would have an incalculable political and spiritual influence in all the Middle East and far beyond. A bi-national Palestine could become a beacon of peace in the world. And also this one: We do not favour Palestine as a Jewish country or Palestine as an Arab country, but a bi-national Palestine as the common country of two peoples. But again, I don't think anyone is disputing this. NorthernWinds (talk) 21:32, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

If no one is disputing this, how is this not a cornerstone example of a Zionist organisation for which "as few Arabs" is not a core tenet? VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 21:34, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

It is such an example. They also proposed to the Anglo-American Commission to restrict Jewish immigration: As to the Jews, in place of the desired unrestricted immigration, we propose a substantial immigration, but with limitations. As to the Arabs, we propose, in place of the desired independent sovereign Arab State, the maximum amount of self-government in a bi-national country.

These are all from the same statement btw NorthernWinds (talk) 21:40, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Morris does not say that Zionists believed Palestine belonged to the Jews. He says they thought it belonged "to the Jews and to no one else." As I said, we do not need to debate whether this means "as few Arabs as possible" because he says that elsewhere, and others do in those exact words. Surtsicna (talk) 20:11, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

He said that those Zionists did. Not all did or do (as has been demonstrated), and this is not an intrinsic part of Zionism either. Morris is fairly explicit about this point: The Zionist movement, while ideologically regarding the country as the ancient patrimony of the Jewish people and as wholly, legitimately, belonging to the Jews, has over the decades politically shifted gears, bowing to political and demographic diktats and realities, moving from an initial demand for Jewish sovereignty over the whole Land of Israel to agreeing to establish a Jewish state in only part of a partitioned Palestine, with the Arabs enjoying sovereignty over the rest. אקעגן (talk) 20:48, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

I think part of the confusion over his point of view is that over the years he has gradually shifted perspective on the topic. Originally (and probably in the writings @Surtsicna is referring to) he was very much of the perspective shown in the current lede. But now he's done more of a 180 on the topic in the quote @אקעגן is showing here. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 21:01, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

I am still not seeing any indication that Morris has done a 180 on "as few Arabs as possible". What he has done a 180 on is whether the expulsion of Arabs was justified. Surtsicna (talk) 22:07, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

On the topic of Buber and Magnes:

M. Buber & J. L. Magnes on behalf of Ihud: We regard the historical rights of the Jews and the natural rights of the Arabs as, under all the circumstances, of equal validity, and it is the task of statesmanship to find ways of adjustment between these contending claims. Neither people can get in Palestine all its wants, and both peoples will have to make concessions. The way of honourable and reasonable compromise must be NorthernWinds (talk) 23:07, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Something about Arabs is essential for the lead. It is a key part of the topic. However, like I wrote in the RfC, I don't much like the existing sentence, which is too black-and-white. It isn't strictly true that Zionists wanted as many Jews as possible; at least for the first generations they wanted certain types of Jew. Nor is it universally true that they wanted as few Arabs as possible; some obviously did but there were also those who would be fine with an Arab minority provided it didn't threaten Jewish hegemony. I still think the alternative text I proposed in the RfC is better: "Zionists wanted to create a Jewish state in Palestine with as much land as possible and a substantial Jewish majority. The latter was to be achieved by massive Jewish immigration, removal of Palestinian Arabs, or both." Zero^talk 02:48, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

OK, it's a good start. Maybe something like: "Zionists wanted to create a Jewish state in Palestine with as much land as possible and a substantial Jewish majority. Historically, there have been seperate ideas of how to achieve the latter, such as massive Jewish immigration, removal of Palestinian Arabs, or both." This acknowledges that it is not universal to Zionism a bit more clearly. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 03:18, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

How is this? VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 16:42, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

That does not reflect the sources cited in this article. A massive Jewish immigration would not have been possible without the removal of Palestinian Arabs because they opposed it; and no amount of immigration could have countered Arab birth rates. The "displacement of Arabs from Palestine" was, as Israeli and non-Israeli historians plainly state, "inherent in Zionist ideology". Surtsicna (talk) 19:11, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

The Arabs that fled because they didn't want Jewish immigration did so of their own accord. Hundreds of thousands of Arabs stayed and decided to live side by side with the Jewish immigrants. I don't think either of those qualify as removal of Arabs by Israel. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 19:24, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Also, it would be helpful to cite your quotes. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 19:25, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Right. That Nakba denial is certainly part of Israel's national myth. The consensus of scholars, however, is that establishing a state in Palestine with "as few Arabs as possible" was a core objective of Zionism. The quoted material is from the article, in one of the citations that you propose to remove. I would have thought that you had read it. Surtsicna (talk) 21:20, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

I proposed to remove it because it was stretching down half the page, and is really difficult to read through. Splitting into two doesn't remove the problem, as it still requires a bunch of scrolling down. Simply pointing me to what is now dozens of sources does not help.

The sources you gave there do not represent "consensus of scholars". Trying to claim something about scholarly consensus is a grave mistake that was tried and failed at Talk:Gaza genocide. Two of the sources are by Benny Morris, who later did a one-eighty on the topic, and in general most sources only refer to knowing for sure that the aim was for a Jewish majority, which by logical derivation would be "as few Arabs as possible", not by actual aim.

Also, all of these sources refer to the narrow early period where the founding of the State of Israel was more realistic and prepared for but not imminent. Upon the founding, half a million Arabs stayed and became Israeli citizens. The only actual aim throught most of the Zionist period was Jewish immigration to Israel to make a Jewish majority, and today focusing on having as few Arabs as possible are only taken by a few Likud politicians and is not, and has nearly never been, universal.

Also, the citations rarely actually quote the people that were involved with this (such as David Ben-Gurion) and when they do, take them out of context. For example, Ben-Gurion's quote about "as a community numbering millions" does not immediately preclude the possibility of the Arab community being able to coexist. It just means that Jewish people won't make up ridiculously low population percentages like 2% or 0.2%. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 18:00, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

I did not cite any of those sources. That they represent a consensus of scholars is the conclusion of the last RfC. Morris never did a 180 on "as few Arabs as possible". Surtsicna (talk) 19:39, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Actually, he did; see @אקעגן's comment earlier citing Morris as such: The early Zionists had been aware of the Arab presence in the country—there were just under half a million around 1882, the year the first Zionists came ashore in Jaffa. And there were, at the time, some twenty-five thousand Jews in the country. But the Zionists anticipated that with gradual or, perhaps, abrupt mass immigration (אנקעגן's emphasis), the Jews would eventually become the majority... But although the transfer idea periodically gripped the imagination of this or that Zionist stalwart during 1882–1936, it was never adopted as a goal or policy platform by the Zionist movement or any of the main Zionist political parties, not then and not later. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 20:50, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Actually, that is not a retraction of "as few Arabs as possible". There are ways to achieve "as few Arabs as possible" that do not involve population transfer. Surtsicna (talk) 22:33, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

I think I know what you are referring to euphemistically. That idea was not around at the time; even the Nakba as described in the current article did not involve anything of the sort. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 22:40, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

@VidanaliK "Least Arabs" does not imply transfer or nakba.

If you look closely, many of the sources supporting the statement are conflict-focused. These works do their job well, but our job is not to present Zionism in the context of the Arab-Israel conflict, but rather as its own thing. This is why I think this sentence should be moved down. NorthernWinds (talk) 22:49, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't think the lead should address these, at least not until it addresses the other things essential to Zionism. Zionism has other core ideological points that are in my opinion more important than "least Arabs" or "Jewish majority," and are even more widely shared in the movement. NorthernWinds (talk) 21:03, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Also, all of the sources for the current end of lede sentence NEED to be formatted better. It reaches down like half the page. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 03:20, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

That is formatted better than the alternative of having 15+ citations after the sentence. TarnishedPath^talk 04:11, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Hopefully it is an uncontroversial edit, but I have split the bundle into two at the half way mark, so makes it a bit easier with scrolability when hovering over the number. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 09:45, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Preferably all of the citations would be moved out of the lead, but that's probably more trouble than it's worth given the continuous debates about particular parts of the lead. TarnishedPath^talk 12:40, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, having no citations in the lede is how it should be, but we have the allowance for citations for exactly the sort of cases that the Zionism article is. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 14:04, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Still reaches down really far: Maybe four refs would do it? VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 16:43, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Maybe we could summarise some of this? Alon Confino (obit.) 2023:

There was no need for the formal adoption of a removal plan to keep the idea of a Jewish ethnonational state alive. Indeed, this sentiment was all the stronger precisely because it was not codified as a plan, but understood as a shared vision of a future still to be determined. The key historical issue is not whether there was a formal plan for transfer or not, and the obsession with this question obscures a deeper understanding of Zionism which reveals the existence of a shared conception of Jewish sovereignty with fewer Palestinians, and in which the idea of transfer was one element in a host of practices and representations.

Third, tracing the notion of a Jewish state with fewer Palestinians heightens our awareness of the connections between the 1948 war and the Yishuv between 1936–1947, in an interpretation that captures contingency within the powerful structures of the Zionist project. This enables us to understand the making of an ethnonational Jewish state as intrinsic to the history of Zionism in those years, while at the same time to understand the outcome of 1948 – of Palestinian dispossession and Jewish independence – as neither created by mere circumstances nor a necessity inscribed in history. If the notion of a Jewish state with fewer Palestinians was not a blueprint for expulsion in 1948, it did reflect a shared political imaginary horizon. Its power was precisely the commingling of the Zionist ideological fundamental – the desire for a Jewish polity – with vagueness as to how exactly to bring about a demographic majority. Importantly, the idea of a Jewish ethnonational state in this period was a constant, though its justifications changed over time and its implementation was contingent on historical circumstances. We can appreciate the claim that I am advancing here by considering the idea of an ethnonational Jewish state during the Second World War and the place of the Holocaust in it. For Zionists in the early years of the war, who could not foresee the magnitude of the extermination of the Jews to come, the justification for removing the Palestinians was that millions of Jews would immigrate to Palestine after the war and space should be made for the newcomers. This was the gist of the argument Chaim Weizmann, the President of the World Zionist Organization, made to Ivan Maiskii, the Soviet ambassador in London, in their February 1941 meeting.12 By 1945 the justification for removing the Palestinians was that millions had perished in the Holocaust, and the future Jewish state simply did not have enough Jews for a robust majority. The Holocaust changed the Zionist justification for a Jewish state with fewer Palestinians, but the idea itself had existed throughout.

The question about Zionism is thus not whether it was a form of settler colonialism, but what kind. Some features are worth noting briefly, without preempting the discussion that follows. There was a tension between, on the one hand, Zionist settler colonialism and, on the other, its pre-1936 federative imaginary, which accepted Arab national rights and other plans to co-habit with the Palestinians (such as the 1946 binational plan of left-wing Zionists). But this tension never reached a breaking point because the imperatives of Zionism had remained the same: expanding the frontier of settlement and attaining a Jewish majority. The achievement of a majority, and the desire for there to be fewer Arabs (but not necessarily no Arabs at all), were determined by the Zionist political imperative to build a Jewish democracy. Settler colonialism, Jewish national sovereignty, and political democracy commingled in Zionism, and were at the basis of the Nakba.

On some level, the ethnonational Zionist change in the mid-1930s was more of a shift than a turning point. Even if one strand of Zionism accepted Arab national rights, it is challenging to see how the Zionists could have established an ethno-polity in Palestine without driving out Arabs from their future territory. Even if the idea of a Jewish state with fewer Palestinians was not articulated by mainstream Zionists until the late 1930s, it was one coherent conclusion of the Zionist project. Yet until the 1930s most Zionists comfortably embraced contradictory notions of Jews having an ethno-polity in Palestine and of Palestinians having national, political rights. The shift in the 1930s, then, was not so much one of finally embracing transfer thinking, as finally resolving a – perhaps the – fundamental contradiction of Zionism by acknowledging that its success depended on drastically reducing the number of Palestinians in the area of the future Jewish state.

Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 18:53, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

OK, so the key sentence here is the bolded sentence which uses logical derivatives meaning that the political imperative was the achievement of a majority leading to the as few Arabs as possible thing. Again, that's a logical derivative, and only one way to solve the problem of how to create a Jewish majority. This can be done with my idea for the end-of-lede sentence, building on the one by @Zero0000, "Zionists wanted to create a Jewish state in Palestine with as much land as possible and a substantial Jewish majority. Historically, there have been seperate ideas of how to achieve the latter, such as massive Jewish immigration, removal of Palestinian Arabs, or both." How is this? VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 19:03, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Note that Confino is writing specifically about the period 1936-1947, rather than about Zionism from the start. The current language of the article does not make this clear, and indeed seems to obfuscate the matter. Confino also projects back into the 1930s the assumption that partition would fail. That was not pre-ordained. It worked (for some rather grim value of “worked”) in India, and to a considerable extent in Greece and Turkey. (I agree that VidabnaliK’s language is an improvement) MarkBernstein (talk) 19:15, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

That's not quite what he says, he says that pre-1930s, having fewer Arabs was an implicit inevitability of the Zionist dream of a Jewish demographic majority. Can anyone access the Routledge Handbook on Zionism and see what it says about this?

Adherents to Zionism sought to create a Jewish state in Palestine with as much land as possible and a substantial Jewish majority. Removal of Palestinian Arabs became explicitly central to this goal from the 1930s onwards, culminating in the Nakba. would better represent the source imo, Confino says that the justification for the removal of Palestinians pre-1945 was to attract more Jewish settlement, not that massive immigration was an intended sole method Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 19:37, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what you would like to find in the handbook, the collection of essays does not mention Confino. fiveby(zero) 13:54, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

• I support the proposal to move it to a later paragraph in the lead (and potentially add wording as proposed in a few comments here), to clarify that this was an important feature of mainstream Zionism at a particular historical moment and not a defining feature of all Zionism throughout its history. Further, it is very clear from the quotes from the scholarship presented by advocates of both positions on this page that the primary sources require interpretation on this and that the secondary sources disagree in how they interpret them, making it wrong for us to choose one interpretation unequivocally in our voice. BobFromBrockley (talk) 03:01, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Ha'aretz Article

I'm creating a subsection here because I think this is significant RS that validates the inclusion and priority of this sentence in the overall article: "'Terror Was Needed to Make Arabs Leave': What the Israeli Army Did in 1948, Revealed":

Among the documents is one stating that "Arabs in a small number are wandering about in the [captured] villages," apparently to collect possessions and food. As per the instructions in the document: "The area is to be cleansed of Arabs." Under the heading "The method," the document adds that "every Arab who will be met with is to be annihilated."

and so on and so forth. I assume there will be some degree of semantic debate over whether or not this can be applied to "Zionism" qua Zionism (the word is not mentioned in the article) and if it is OR or SYNTH to say that the people involved were Zionists. But I am going to BOLDly add this as a reference to the sentence because I think it does to a significant degree put paid to this debate. While it may not have been Herschel himself writing these documents, the people doing the Zionism on the ground were. Smallangryplanet (talk) 17:24, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

@NorthernWinds already started this here Smallangryplanet (talk) 17:31, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

@Smallangryplanet Searching the word "Zion" in the article does not bring results, so this can't possibly support that "Zionists" wanted minimum Arabs and maximum Jews. In any case, your excerpt does not say that either. This fits more on 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight.

Author is a historian NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 17:37, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

As of 2020 they were not listed as Doctor of Philosophy, I could not find any updates on that. Not exactly the best source.

Also if we are already bringing up additional sources, this one that directly disputes the sentence and Wikipedia's citation of Morris may be of interest. @Surtsicna @אקעגן @VidanaliK to your attention - PhD Asaf Romirowsky spoke to Jewish Journal:

Shortly after the “colonization” sentence, the Wikipedia article says that “Zionists wanted to create a Jewish state in Palestine with as much land, as many Jews, and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible.” Romirowsky called this sentence “false.” “There are [an] abundance of diplomatic correspondents of looking to find ways for coexistence and the fact of the matter is that all those Arabs who stayed in the land and became the Arab Israelis … they became naturalized citizens because of that earlier desire for coexistence between the population of the land,” he said, adding that there were Jews who “bought the areas of the land fair and square from lease owners and land owners who were not even on the land itself. The politicization of the land itself only became politicized post-1948, and the reason for that was, this is all part of the Arab propaganda of the day, and theologically speaking I would argue that … there is a Sharia law perception that any land that was once Muslim is Muslim in perpetuity.” Romirowsky also pointed to the fact that “the Jewish community was willing to accept whatever proposal was offered to them, even the desolate land itself, just the idea of having a homeland.”

Israeli historian Benny Morris’s 2004 book, “The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited,” is also among the citations for the “as few Palestinians Arabs as possible” line, based on a passage that stated in part that “the displacement of Arabs from Palestine or from the areas of Palestine that would become the Jewish State was inherent in Zionist ideology.” Romirowsky claimed that Wikipedia editors are “selectively choosing quotes” from Morris here.

(my emphasis) NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 18:17, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

source NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 18:23, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

"Romirowsky also pointed to the fact that “the Jewish community was willing to accept whatever proposal was offered to them, even the desolate land itself, just the idea of having a homeland.”"

Just want to point out that this is not true. Ben Gurion in the 1930s rejected proposals by some Arabs for a Jewish homeland within an Arab state in the 1930s. What he wanted was a Jewish state, not just a Jewish homeland (these are not synonyms). If is this distinction between a homeland and a state that made negotiations between Arab and Zionist leaders basically impossible from the 30's to the 40s, because what the Arabs viewed as a massive concession (accepting a minimal reading of the Balfour declaration) was not enough for the Zionist movement at the time (not counting Judah Magnes, but he was an exception). Drsmartypants(Smarty M.D) (talk) 05:12, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

@Drsmartypants(Smarty M.D) I think he is speaking of the Jewish commmunity itself, rather than its leaeders. Palestine Jewry was probably a bit more utopic in its mindset than its leaders.

Ben Gurion in the 1930s rejected proposals by some Arabs Are you talking about his conversation with Musa Alami? NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 08:06, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Not just that, but also with George Antonius, who was a Pan-Syrianist and was willing to accept a Jewish homeland in Palestine, according to https://www.jstor.org/stable/162527 . Drsmartypants(Smarty M.D) (talk) 08:41, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

He is actively publishing books still, but I can't find an update as to the status of his doctoral studies. While the Haaretz article is a RS, by an author who has published multiple books on the period of history, it is not not a source I would say can determine the inclusion/exclusion of the sentence on its own, considering me use multiple academically published books in our current determination. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 12:02, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

The notion that Arabs were to be expelled as a matter of Yishuv policy has been refuted by Morris:

But there was no pre-war Zionist plan to expel ‘the Arabs’ from Palestine or the areas of the emergent Jewish State; and the Yishuv did not enter the war with a plan or policy of expulsion. Nor was the pre-war ‘transfer’ thinking ever translated, in the course of the war, into an agreed, systematic policy of expulsion. Hence, in the war’s first four months, between the end of November 1947 and the end of March 1948, there were no preparations for mass expulsion and there were almost no cases of expulsion or the leveling of villages; hence, during the following ten months, Haganah and IDF units acted inconsistently, most units driving out Arab communities as a matter of course while others left (Muslim as well as Christian and Druse) villages and townspeople in place; and hence, at war’s end, Israel emerged with a substantial Arab minority, of 150,000 (a minority that today numbers one million – and still constitutes (a restive and potentially explosive) one fifth of the State’s population).

A fortiori, it cannot be considered to be intrinsic in the transcendent ideology of Zionism itself. אקעגן (talk) 19:04, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

The article does not state that Arabs were to be expelled as a matter of Yishuv policy. Surtsicna (talk) 15:29, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Correct. So why is it cited as a something that "validates the inclusion and priority" of the sentence that Zionism seeks to reduce Arab presence? אקעגן (talk) 00:00, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I don’t see how this single source about one period (which doesn’t appear to use the word “Zionism”?) should sway the debate. BobFromBrockley (talk) 03:02, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

RfC: Do sources say that the Zionist claim to Palestine was based on perceived superiority of rights?

Procedurally closed RfC

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Procedural closure for a better RfC question. NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 21:21, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

---

Do the sources in this table (and here ) support the following statement: The Zionist claim to Palestine was based on the notion that the Jews' historical right to the land outweighed that of the Arabs.?

• A: the statement is fully supported by all sources presented in support.
• B: the statement is fully supported but only by some of the sources presented in support (specify them if you pick this option).
• C: the sources presented say that Zionists believed the notion that the Jewish right to Palestine outweighed that of the Arabs but not that the Zionist claim to Palestine was based on this notion.

NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 20:35, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this non-neutral RfC should be closed. Presenting the readers with some cherry picked sources won't achieve anything. M.Bitton (talk) 20:43, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Background

This was first discussed independently here with 4 to 1 for A then at WP:ORN here where most new contributors weighing in said that the sources do not support the statement.

Survey

• Procedural Close this is not WP:RSN, and whether some cherry picked sources support a statement or not is irrelevant to whether that statement is attributable to other sources. M.Bitton (talk) 21:09, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Discussion

• We are not limited to the sources I've linked (which are all the sources that have so far been presented in this discussion and include your own sources). If you have newer ones to present, by all means, go ahead. NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 20:48, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

  This was said in response to Bitton's note which I have previously moved here NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 21:00, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

  In that case, you should a question without imposing your choice of sources unto the readers. Whether a statement is attributable/sourced or not doesn't depend on someone's pseudo-analysis of whatever they cherry picked somewhere. . M.Bitton (talk) 21:00, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

  Your preferred choice of wording is right there. Do you have any more choices to suggest? NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 21:05, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

  Please familiarise yourself with WP:RFC. Ask a neutral question (about whether the statement is attributable) and let the readers do their own research and come to their own conclusion. M.Bitton (talk) 21:09, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

• Poor choice of options here. Option C doesn't make sense when it states "Zionists believed that the Jewish right to Palestine outweighed that of the Arabs but not that their claim to Palestine was based on it." IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:52, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

  @IOHANNVSVERVS Hopefully option C is clearer now. Do you have any more options to suggest? Since no one has !voted yet, you are free to add them. NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 20:59, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Consensus

What consensus is there regarding the opening paragraph? I've removed a comment talking about an unclear consensus and my edits have been reverted. It does not seem to that any of the discussions here have led to some sort of a consensus regarding the issue of the opening paragraph, much less so the new-ish opinion citing addition of the aspirations of the Zionists regarding the native Palestinian Arabs which has recently been discussed. This article's lead section does not agree with the relatively sound paragraphs or linked articles. All articles related to Jews or Israel seem to have lead sections that say nothing at all and are a result of nationalist keyboard battles. There's no need to create another Jerusalem lead. Eladabudi (talk) 12:29, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

See the banners at the top of this page. Also, it doesn’t really matter if there was consensus or not: someone challenged your edits by reversion, so it is now your responsibility to gain consensus to restore your edits. I₂Overcome ^talk 12:49, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

I've made multiple edits - were all of them a part of the consensus referred to in the reversion? Eladabudi (talk) 13:03, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

They were reverted, and as such, you have no choice but to seek consensus for them. M.Bitton (talk) 13:06, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

The reversion was technical - no comment regarding other paragraphs has been made, disregarding the questionable "consensus" linked in the talk regarding the lead which has received media attention. Could other edits be restored? I will not edit the page myself right now, for obvious reasons Eladabudi (talk) 13:16, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

The point is that once an edit has been reverted, it is no longer eligible to be just be reverted again, it must be explicitly discussed and consensus found for it. Katzrockso (talk) 03:44, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

@Eladabudi, there is an RFC above which links prior discussions concerning some of the changes you were attempting to make. I suggest you read the RFC as well as the linked discussions. Regarding the other changes you were attempting to make, a lot of that content has also been previously discussed—at length. You can find discussions in the archives. TarnishedPath^talk 12:54, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Recent discussion suggests no consensus. Eladabudi (talk) 12:59, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

That's your assessment. Please refer to the notice at the top of this page titled Warning: active arbitration remedies TarnishedPath^talk 13:06, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

There is obviously no consensus on this page. A quick look at the RFC responses will tell you that. But this page is like a hornet's nest where even reasonable edits are disallowed. There are sources listed in the source audit that contradict the supposed "consensus." Why can't they be added? Why does one side get to add whatever they want and the other side gets shot down over technicalities? There is no fairness here. Slava570 (talk) 15:37, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

It's hard to negate the non-existent. The reversion referred to agreements that simply do not appear in the talk page. I'm not sure what I'm being referred to by you either. I am requesting that edits to this page not be undone en masse for no reason. Eladabudi (talk) 16:25, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

@Eladabudi: TarnishedPath is referring to the fact that this page has the consensus required provision, meaning Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 20:14, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Take a look at the edit history, I'm not the one reinstating content without consensus... I understand the guidelines. The fact of the matter is that no consensus exists, especially not regarding paragraphs which have not been edited. I also have a feeling that at least some of the editors here aren't very familiar with the concept of of avoda ivrit which was also reverted baselessly. Eladabudi (talk) 20:42, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

If someone reverts you, you cannot restore your edit until a sufficient number of editors on the talk page express support for your change.

This prevents tag-team edit warring at the cost of rewarding talk page stonewalling. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 21:08, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Ignoring the fact that I've made multiple edits - I removed content which is very clearly not part of any consensus, which referred to a non-existent consensus amongst editors. That is not restoration of removed content, quite the opposite.

Regarding other edits - I've not received a response on the talk page regarding the actual content of my edits, and they were not the target of the reversion. I do not intend to edit war. I've opened this talk page hoping for factual responses before I restore those edits, but have yet received any. Can't really get a consensus with references to procedures. Substance over form. Eladabudi (talk) 21:23, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Definition of transfer

@Butterscotch Beluga In your revert you implied that a "mutually agreed shift" is the same as ethnic cleansing, or the forced removal of a population. How come? NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 20:56, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

@Butterscotch Beluga Please discuss here. Also I think I accidentally added nonsense on examples in my edit summary. Ignore it NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 21:04, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

A "mutually agreed shift" alone is not the same as ethnic cleansing, but it can still occur alongside ethnic cleansing without contradictions. Whether it was through mutual agreement, threat/fear of force, or in between, as a whole, it's all a part of the systemic policy to promote a population transfer. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:41, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Morris drew a distinction between "organised, compensated, mutually agreed shift" and the "one-sided expulsion, of Arab communities out of Palestine". Also upon a third look it appears I was not speaking nonsense in my edit summary. For example, the article, citing Morris, says Some leaders, such as Ruppin, Motzkin, and writers such as Israel Zangwill, also referred to transfer as a "voluntary" action that would include some form of compensation. "Voluntary" is fundementally incompatible with the definition of ethnic cleansing and the fact this is cited to Morris further reinforces my argument that Morris did not speak only of ethnic cleansing when he summarized his chapter. NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 21:55, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm at a bit of an impasse as the word of those promoting the transfer aren't a reliable source to determine if it was truly voluntary, however, as we are trying to describe their intent, I'm unsure what else could be used without WP:SYNTH.

I think it'd be better to look at how sources as a whole cover the term rather then quote Morris in specific though. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 22:20, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

The passage in question says: Zionists used the term "transfer" as a euphemism.... The quote above speaks to exactly that: how the term was used by some people who used it. If you are reading something else into that, it is WP:OR. You would need a source that said "They used the term to mean xyz, but what they really meant was abc." Slava570 (talk) 22:29, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Plenty of RS can be added (if needed).

Ben-Gurion, the architect of the Nakba, had long advocated for “compulsory transfer.” In 1937, he established a Committee on Population Transfer within the Jewish Agency. And, of course, transfer, a euphemism for ethnic cleansing, was in fact carried out at a mass level in 1948 and again in 1967. One of its most notorious perpetrators, Yosef Weitz, the Director of the Jewish National Fund's Land Settlement Department, wrote: It must be clear that there is no room in the country for both peoples ... The only solution is a Land of Israel without Arabs... There is no way but to transfer the Arabs from here to the neighbouring countries, to transfer all of them, perhaps with the exception of Bethlehem, Nazareth and the old Jerusalem. Not one village must be left, not one tribe.

Plan D, and expressly its inclusion of phrases such as ‘destruction of villages’ and ‘expulsion of the [village] population to [territory] outside the borders of the state’,” can be taken as the model example of “the Zionist concept of “transfer” - a euphemism denoting the organised removal of the indigenous population of Palestine to neighbouring countries” and also, therefore, as proof that there existed 'a program of premeditated ethnic cleansing'. Joseph Weitz, former head of the Jewish Agency's Colonization Department clearly stated the Zionist intent to ‘transfer’ the native population of Palestine out of their country:

  Between ourselves it must be clear that there is no room for both peoples together in this country... We shall not achieve our goal of being an independent people with the Arabs in this small country. The only solution is Palestine, at least Western Palestine (west of the Jordan river) without Arabs..and there is no other way but to transfer the Arabic from here to the neighbouring countries; to transfer all of them; not one village, not one tribe should be left.

Shaw notes that the Hebrew word used by the Zionists for “transfer” is tihur, which he claims is “closer in ‘meaning to “purification” or “cleansing” of the land, and thus puts this strand of Zionist thinking close to the “ethnic cleansing” and “racial purification” ideologies typical of radical nationalist projects’. Pappé states that in 1948 tihur was on ‘every order that the High Command passes down to the units on the ground. Pappé suggests that ‘the events that unfolded after May 1948 in Israel and Palestine should be reviewed from within the paradigm of ethnic cleansing rather than military history’ Levene concurs with this view, stating;

  ...the story may be soberingly familiar when set alongside other instances of ethnic cleansing or atrocity in the modern world. But this hardly makes it less shocking. Indeed, given that these operations occurred just two or three years after the end of the Holocaust, the ease with which they took on the aspect of a standard operating procedure is little short of sickening.

At the time of the 1949 Armistice, ‘the Jewish population - which two years earlier had constituted 26% of the population of Mandate Palestine and had owned around 7% of the total land - had seized 77% of the land and come to constitute 80% of the population’.

M.Bitton (talk) 00:43, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

@M.Bitton, your sources do not support this broad statement.

1. The first one talks about transfer in the context of compulsory transfer and the 1937 commission. Not in general.
2. The second one says transfer is the organised removal of the indigenous population. The definition of ethnic cleansing says that it is the forced removal of a population
3. The source you added to the article does not say that transfer is ethnic cleansing, but that it is politicide. This view is probably very fringe and should be disregarded. Why did you add it as if it says that transfer is ethnic cleansing?

There are types of transfer. Shabti Teveth in his article "evolution of 'transfer' in Zionist thinking" defined them. One of them is Voluntary transfer — mass migration based on inducements or considerations of benefit (loosely, transfer by persuasion). Clearly, "transfer" does not only refer to ethnic cleansing and/or forced removal. @Butterscotch Beluga, I do not think this type of transfer can be said to be a "euphemism for ethnic cleansing". NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 17:59, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

I disagree:

1. The first supports the broad statement. Did you miss what it said about "1948 and again in 1967"?
2. Likewise for the second. Your The definition.. is [WP:OR]].
3. It does. Take it to RSN and substantiate your very fringe claim.

M.Bitton (talk) 18:06, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

A few things:

1. What it says about 1948 and 1967 is irrelevant. The idea is older than the 1937 commission and the source does not speak of those times. Also, if we were to apply Morris' definition, we'd see that it also works for 1948 and 1967 (simply because Halper's definition is included in Morris'). "Transfer" is more broad than just ethnic cleansing.
2. It is not OR; I linked two academic sources...
3. It is not my burden to prove it is fringe; it is your burden to prove it is not. If it is not fringe, it should be quite easy to find more sources claiming the same.
4. Whether Khalidi's view is fringe or not, it does not support the "ethnic cleansing" statement and should not be added for it. In fact, if not fringe, it is further proof that our definition on the page is not good enough.

NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 18:16, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

I will ignore 1 and 2 (already covered). As for 3 and 4: you are making a factually incorrect claim about a source. I suggest you read it again. M.Bitton (talk) 18:19, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

@M.Bitton You are in violation of WP:1RR. Please self-revert NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 19:50, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

How? This is the only edit they've made to the article in a week. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 19:56, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

I thought reverts should be discussed instead of reverted in IPA? NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 19:57, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

per top of this talk page Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 19:58, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Oh, you mean WP:CRP. Ok that makes sense for the edit regarding the source, but that doesn't explain this edit of yours that removed "settler-colonial" as, while I see it discussed above at "Zionists saying Zionism is Colonialism", I don't see where a consensus for its exclusion was established. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 20:09, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't see where a consensus for its exclusion was established should probably be discussed in the thread but yes this is the reason I brought it up only here and not there. I think there is enough of a consensus to exclude but I can see how it can be disputed. For further discussions we should probably take it to the thread. M.Bitton should re-remove the source NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 20:16, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Why should the source be removed? It is clearly relevant. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:24, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

While the interpretation of "transfer" being a euphemism for ethnic cleansing can potentially be attributed, it's still a well supported interpretation due for inclusion. As such, I don't think Morris should be directly quoted in article to define this interpretation of the term as his definition is none-representative of the argument in question.

As to your comment on the source M.Bitton included, I ask you re-read the segment from the citation (Bolding mine) -

"the only means to create a state in Palestine with institutions whose nature would be determined, and fully controlled, by a Jewish majority, was to engage in what today is called ethnic cleansing. The neutral, bland term "transfer" was the Orwellian euphemism employed at that time to describe what amounted to an act of politicide."

It directly references ethnic cleansing when discussing the euphemistic use of the term "transfer". That they also describe it as a form of politicide does not counteract this. It is a wholly apt citation in this manner. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 18:19, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

This seems like 2 different statement. The first is about Khalidi's assessment of the ways a Jewish state could be created, while the other is about what transfer means. Politicide is not ethnic cleansing by any means.

So far we have brought 4 relevant sources defining transfer broadly; 2 are doing so directly, one (Teveth) gives a list of definitions of different types and one (Hynes et al) gives a short definition that clashes with nothing but is also not that descriptive.

I propose the following sentences (citing Morris & Masalha):

1. Zionists used the term "transfer" to describe the "organized, compensated shift or one-sided expulsion of Arab communities out of Palestine". Some scholars, such as Nur Masalha, identify the term as an euphemism to ethnic cleansing
2. Zionists used the term "transfer" to refer to the voluntary, compensated movement or coerced expulsion of Arabs out of Palestine; which some argue is euphemistic to ethnic cleansing.

NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 19:48, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Strong oppose I self-reverted and to avoid wasting time entertaining your factually incorrect claims about the source, I will take it to RSN. M.Bitton (talk) 21:06, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

A link to said noticeboard section for convenience. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 22:11, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Butterscotch Beluga is right, NorthernWinds' argument is a tortured interpretation of the source. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:40, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

NorthernWinds is right and has provided a correct interpretation of the source. Slava570 (talk) 21:45, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't understand how those two sentences could be interpreted as referring to separate concepts. The entire quoted statement is clearly referring to the transfer of a population & its relation to the establishment of a state. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 22:07, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

What I've said about the first sentence is wrong, it is actually what Khalidi said that most Zionists eventually acknowledged. My mistake NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 21:13, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

I think the issue here is that Khalidi is using politicide in a different sense than Politicide does. See another article of his, which says Taken together, these statements of British and League of Nations policy constituted in effect the justification for “politicide,” meaning the destruction of the emerging Palestinian polity, to use the term coined by the late Israeli sociologist Baruch Kimmerling . He references Kimmerling's use of the term elsewhere too. Ethnic cleansing can be a way to achieve politicide, in this sense of the term.

Hope this helps, Katzrockso (talk) 21:48, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

This makes sense. Thanks! NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 11:27, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

References

WP:OR/N discussion

There has been a discussion opened at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Basis of the Zionist claim to Palestine concerning this article. TarnishedPath^talk 00:21, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Zionists saying Zionism is Colonialism

@Onceinawhile The sources I've removed do not support the conclusion.

Also in general the sentence Various proponents of Zionism have characterized Zionism as colonial or settler-colonial is pretty dubious. Firstly, settler-colonialism did not exist as an idea at the time of Zionism. Secondly, this is contridicted by almost all primary sources I've encountered (all but one). Zionists used terms such as "colonization," as Masalha said, and did not describe Zionism as colonialism (again, with the exception of one).

Anyways, it seems like one of the sources I haven't remove is citing a post-Zionist, an ideology associated with anti-Zionism. Should be removed as well. Please self-revert.

Best, NorthernWinds (talk) 19:35, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

• Talk:Zionism/Archive 33#sources for "Some proponents of Zionism accept the characterization of Zionism as settler-colonial or exceptionalist."
• Talk:Zionism/Archive 37#"Various proponents of Zionism have characterized Zionism as colonial or settler-colonial."

prior discussion. fiveby(zero) 20:20, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

@NorthernWinds: your first assertion is complete nonsense - the opposite is true - you are mixing the question of terminology with the question of substance. Your second assertion is absurd, given you just deleted sources that contradict it.

I suggest you read Zionism as settler colonialism and the sources there. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:47, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile My first assertion regards settler colonialism's existence as a term, so I assume you are speaking of the other assertion

The citations in Zionism as settler colonialism are the exact same ones that are presented here. In fact, rather than just citing the source supporting the closest thing the article has to "Zionists described their movemenet as colonial," whoever wrote this line in this page just gobbled up citations supporting other things and displayed it here as if they all support that Zionists described Zionism as settler colonial.

Please cite one secondary source supporting you. Alternatively, cite three primary sources supporting you (I know this is WP:OR, but it seems you are convinced so maybe this search will convince you otherwise) NorthernWinds (talk) 21:03, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Currently none of the sources used actually provide an argument of writings from proponents of Zionism that describe it as a process of settler-colonialism. We have multiple sources showing that Herzl and Jabotinsky viewed it as a colonizing adventure. Burg is usable being a contemporary opinion of a Zionist (post-Zionist) commenting on Israel as a colonial state. But, unless citations are brought in where we have scholars detailing how/why some of the writings/positions/statements of Zionists are describing a process of settler-colonialism, then or settler-colonial should be removed from the sentence. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 14:27, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

@Cdjp1 Post Zionists are not Zionists. And Herzl's usage of "colonial" language has explanations and should be addressed, but not just dropped there without context. Also, this section makes it seem like Zionism is colonialism, despite scholar consensus that it is either settler colonialism or neither settler colonialism nor colonialism NorthernWinds (talk) 23:25, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Actually there's more to it. The section on colonialism addresses settler colonialism too despite there being a section for settler colonialism NorthernWinds (talk) 23:29, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

While I tend to view post-Zionists as not being within the camp of Zionism, many post-Zionists themselves (including the one we cite) would disagree and believe they fall within Zionism more broadly. As to how scholars view the matter, that is correct, but presently we only provide citations that discuss colonialism/colonisation and not settler-colonialism specifically, so the text we have is not cited, hence my statement, should citations not be added. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 23:32, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

What kind of sources are you looking for? Something like these? M.Bitton (talk) 23:36, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

As previously stated, the sources need to argue that proponents of Zionism have characterized Zionism as [...] settler-colonial, not that Zionism is settler-colonial. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:28, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

I’m 99% sure none of those sources support the “proponents” wording. If I’m wrong, please provide direct quotes that relate to what “proponents” characterised Zionism as. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:06, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

many post-Zionists themselves (including the one we cite) would disagree and believe they fall within Zionism more broadly this statement in post-Zionism has failed verification and been removed. NorthernWinds (talk) 23:41, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Colonization and Colonialism are not the same thing. Citations supporting that Zionists used words like "colonization" do not imply that Zionists characterized Zionism as colonialism or colonial. NorthernWinds (talk) 15:58, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

I am aware that colonisation and colonialism are not the same thing (though we employ a variety of sources throughout the article that do describe Zionism as colonialism), as for "colonial" we state in the article text that proponents of Zionism have characterized Zionism as colonial and this is supported by the sources. One example:

Bar-Yosef 2012, pp. 100–101: "The most disturbing manifestation of Herzl's infatuation with British imperialism can be found in his ardent determination to meet Cecil Rhodes. [...] '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, and because it presupposes understanding of a development which will take twenty or thirty years.'"

-- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:08, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

@Cdjp1 One example is not enough to merit various propotents though. It also carries a disclaimer. See Penslar's paper: ...These critiques are based on Herzl's Zionist writings and diaries, whose invocations of colonial governance are ad hoc and instrumental, linked to a particular negotiating partner or strategy at a particular moment in time

Herzl's actual relationship with colonialism is a bit more complicated, and requires more than a sentence to discuss. NorthernWinds (talk) 20:27, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

As I stated that was just to show one example, it is not the only example we currently use, let alone that exists in reputable scholarly sources. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 20:32, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

@Cdjp1 Who else are we citing?

What matters is not who reputable sources exist, but what the sources cited in the articles say. If you have more sources on this, feel free to add them. Currently the article only cites one Zionist, and his usage comes with disclaimers. NorthernWinds (talk) 20:41, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response (and for the rescue from the archive); I have major connectivity issues and do not know how much time this connection will last. I have removed "settler colonial" from the sentence and have still not seen a source supporting that Zionists other than Herzl characterized Zionism as colonialism. Also note that your single example is a primary source and not an analysis NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 19:32, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath Since there was already a discussion, I am reverting your revert. NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 18:01, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

@NorthernWinds, I don't see consensus here. Therefore this removal has yet again been challanged by reversion. Please be aware of WP:CRP and don't let this happen again. To be clear, given that the removal has been challanged by removal you need, or anyone else for that matter, need affirmative consensus from this talk page in order to reinstate the change. Refer to the active arbitration notice at the top of this page which states that "Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page" TarnishedPath^talk 23:23, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

I am aware, I thought there is enough of a consensus. NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 11:24, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

A small yet rather crucial note on nomenclature, crucial particularly on account of the rather messy discussion: "colonialism", by definition, can never be "colonisation" (or "colonization"). The former denotes an ideology, a geopolitical and military strategy, a charactertistic in a nation's foreign policy; the latter denotes the application in real life, the materialization of said policy. I believe we should always strive for total clarity and exactitude in a Wikipedia discussion, and not just on controversial issues such as "Zionism." -The Gnome (talk) 12:05, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Burg is being misquoted here. The French original refers to settlements not colonialism. He is attacking contemporary settlers, not making a point about Zionism being self-consciously a colonial project. It needs to be deleted. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:03, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Users were arguing for saying Zionists described their movement with terms that haven't existed yet. After reading this for over 15 minutes it seems like the argument for inclusion mostly rests on interpreting the sources rather than reporting what they say.

Some of the citations are clear WP:SYNTH, like Morris', and some support that they used terms like "colonization" (which is true). None of them support the statement in the article. NorthernWinds (talk) 20:48, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Wow - I see that you are the #1 commenter at Talk:Zionism as settler colonialism per .

Do you have consensus for your point of view? If not, this feels like a WP:FORUMSHOP.

Onceinawhile (talk) 21:11, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile Please read the discussions, they had nothing to do with this topic, so under no circumstances is this WP:FORUMSHOP. No Zionist leader ever said that Zionism is settler colonialism.

You did not address what I said, and instead went ahead and suggested misconduct without evidence.

Do you have consensus for your point of view? WP:STONEWALLING

If not, this feels like a WP:FORUMSHOP. WP:ASPERSIONS

I do not appreciate this cynical tone of the first sentence. Please try to engage civilly and constructively NorthernWinds (talk) 21:36, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

If all you are arguing is that No Zionist leader ever said that Zionism is settler colonialism, then that doesn’t negate the sentence you removed that [bolding added for emphasis]: Various proponents of Zionism have characterized Zionism as colonial or settler-colonial.

And even if it did, you should be advocating for a minor nuance for clarity rather than a wholesale removal.

Onceinawhile (talk) 22:13, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Ok, no proponents of Zionism never charactarized Zionism as settler-colonialism. Please support your statement that they did, if you can't that'd mean that this statement is supported by original research no research

Please offer evidence that Various proponents of Zionism charactarized Zionism as colonial NorthernWinds (talk) 22:47, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Here is the well known columnist Philologos:

• "Why the Accusation of Settler Colonialism Is So Hollow". Tikvah Ideas. 2025-02-05. Though Herzl's plans fell through, Fayez Sayegh was right. Zionism was settler colonialism par excellence. It's not wrong to think that it was. What is wrong is thinking that the type of colonialism that Sayegh ascribed to Zionism — that which has no "metropolitan home-base" but is "a home-base in its own right" — is automatically reprehensible.

Onceinawhile (talk) 22:57, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

There is also this gem. M.Bitton (talk) 22:59, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Nice "gem," but neither of these support your conclusion. Per WP:OR: The prohibition against original research means that it must be possible for editors to find a reliable, published source that directly supports any given bit of material. NorthernWinds (talk) 23:03, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

@NorthernWinds: I have nothing more to say to you. You ask me for evidence, I provide it to you, and then you try to move the goalposts. That is not how constructive discussion works. If you genuinely want to progress, rather than having an argument for the sake of it, you need to be able to acknowledge evidence, or at least parts of it. Then we can start moving towards territory where we can find common ground. If you refuse to look for common ground, you are not right for this project, which is inherently collaborative. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:49, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

The second sentence was written for Bitton, not for you. Also I was unaware that Philologos was a Zionist; I expected a significant well-known person.

This view seems very fringe, not due for inclusion. Has an academic found this view notable enough to write on?

Please WP:AGF. There is no need for the repeated hostility toward me. NorthernWinds (talk) 13:24, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm going to assume that you haven't read it. M.Bitton (talk) 23:06, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

I did skim. I may have missed something. Do you mind quoting? NorthernWinds (talk) 23:15, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I do mind. That source wasn't even meant for you to start with. M.Bitton (talk) 23:15, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

That’s not a gem. It’s a low quality source, and it doesn’t say that proponents of Zionism characterized Zionism as colonial or settler-colonial. BobFromBrockley (talk) 05:17, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

That's your irrelevant opinion of a scholarly source. M.Bitton (talk) 11:36, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

It is my opinion of this academic source, yes, as everything you say on this page is your opinion. There is no need to be uncivil. Surely it is obviously that an article in the Journal of Oriental studies by non-subject matter experts is not a WP:BESTSOURCE per our policies? Further, it does not mention that any proponents of Zionism have characterized Zionism as settler-colonial, so it does not support that part of the claim. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:12, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

PS M.Bitton, As you’ve now raised this in the AE case against you, using it to describe me as someone who persistently dismisses sources that don’t align with my POV, I want to make it clear I don’t think this source is unreliable just that (for reasons I outlined carefully in Archive 37) it’s not a BESTSOURCE and I have absolutely no objection to you taking it to RSN if you want to. BobFromBrockley (talk) 03:39, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

More important than that, I raised the issue of you making false claims about me (I also provided the supporting diff). M.Bitton (talk) 17:18, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Onceinawhile, surely you don’t believe Fayez Sayegh is a “proponent of Zionism” do you? BobFromBrockley (talk) 05:15, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

The quoted text is from Philologos, not from Fayez Sayegh Katzrockso (talk) 21:58, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Circling back to this. Hillel Halkin (Philologos) says that various proponents of Zionism (he gives examples from the 1880s to 1900s) characterised Zionism as a colonizing movement (a statement I think we could make in wikivoice), the only Zionist there who sees it as settler colonial is Halkin himself, too trivial an example on which to hang a statement in the lead, and he is arguing against "most defenders of Israel", who he says oppose this characterisation; i.e. he is an outlier.

• tl;dr: we should say "Various proponents of Zionism [or, better, various early proponents of Zionism] have characterized Zionism as a colonising movement" instead of the wording we have now.

BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:07, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

I think Onceinawhile's point was that this falsifies NorthernWind's strict claim that Ok, no proponents of Zionism never charactarized Zionism as settler-colonialism. I agree this would be a terrible source to use in the article. Katzrockso (talk) 03:41, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

It was indeed a bit foolish to state such a thing.

We are 4 supporting removal and 2 resisting. When does this become consensus? NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 11:26, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

This has been discussed at length. M.Bitton (talk) 22:27, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

I do not doubt that it has. Yet WP:STONEWALLING seems a real risk. The use of anachronistic terms ought to be avoided in historical writing, and that seems a real risk here. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:33, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

"real risk" means diddly squat. Consensus is all that counts around here and since you don't have it, I suggest you refrain from removing the stable content. M.Bitton (talk) 22:37, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

@M.Bitton There were serious issues with the last discussion, including, but not limited to, how not a single editor could find a source directly supporting this. Proponents of the sentences did nothing short of violating a core policy of Wikipedia. Until a source directly supports this, it should be removed. No megathreads or monstrous discussion with many hands voting in favor will ever change the fact that there is no source. CONSENSUS is not the result of a vote. NorthernWinds (talk) 23:01, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

I disagree (for all the reasons that have been mentioned in the previous discussions). M.Bitton (talk) 23:07, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

I did not remove any context, @M.Bitton. You must be confused, because I am sure you want to be WP:CIVIL. MarkBernstein (talk) 00:28, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

I confused you with the OP. A simple mistake. M.Bitton (talk) 00:30, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

This has indeed been discussed at length. The first time there was consensus against inclusion but nobody removed it. The second time, no consensus was achieved. BobFromBrockley (talk) 05:22, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

I strongly urge editors here not involved in the previous discussions to read them and then that we finally edit the sentence to remove the inaccurate part and edit the sources to remove the ones which are either not best sources or don’t support the claim made. BobFromBrockley (talk) 05:27, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

I thought I'd record something I stumbled across. It is sometimes said that the division of colonization into exploitation and settler types is a modern analytic idea, which I always doubted. Here is an extract from a letter Chaim Weizmann wrote to Otto Warburg in 1903. He is referring to the British offer of land in East Africa, but look how he describes the options:

What I can gather from the literature is that the British East Africa Protectorate is more suitable for a plantation type of colonisation (colonisation d'exploitation) than for an agricultural type of colonisation (colonisation de peuplement). This opinion has been confirmed to me also by Élisée Reclus and Leroy-Beaulieu. The former type of colonisation, demanding of course great capital and few settlers, is hardly suitable to our situation, however. [Letters and Papers of Chaim Weizmann, volume A3, page 94.]

The original was in German, so it is clear that the French comments are Weizmann's and not the translators (and in any case translators' notes are placed in footnotes in this work and not in-line). Zero^talk 04:17, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

That’s very interesting indeed. But would you say it supports “Various proponents of Zionism have characterized Zionism as settler-colonial”? BobFromBrockley (talk) 05:21, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

It's marginal as a source for that statement. It would be more pertinent if it was about Palestine. Incidentally, the reference to Lerot-Beaulieu is almost certainly to this seminal 1874 book on colonization which defines and discusses the two forms. Of course that's too early for Zionism to be mentioned. Zero^talk 06:16, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Getting off topic here but maybe Pierre Paul Leroy-Beaulieu should be mentioned in the settler colonialism article? BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:15, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

The meaning of words changes between eras and between languages. In this case, we have both. Indeed, Weizmann is clearly reaching for a term. His first language is Yiddish. He is writing to Warburg in German. Neither קאָלאָניאַלער nor kolonial seems entirely suitable so he reaches for French compounds. None of these terms in 1903 carried the baggage of settler-colonialism, a framework that had not yet been propounded. In discussing a space colony, we might usefully distinguish between asteroid miners (colonisation d'exploitation) and an independent city in space (colonisation de peuplement); neither concerns subjugation or appropriation. MarkBernstein (talk) 14:58, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

What you have written here is not correct. These words have not changed meaning. This passage from the 1891 edition of Lerot-Beaulieu (who Weizmann cited) could easily be written today:

"Tout homme qui a étudié avec quelque attention les colonies des peuples européens soit dans le passé soit dans le présent sait que , en dehors des simples comptoirs , il y a deux catégories principales de colonies , lesquelles se distinguent par des caractères très tranchés : les colonies d'exploitation, telles que les Indes orientales anglaises et Java ; les colonies de peuplement comme le Canada et l'Australie. Dans les premières le peuple colonisateur apporte seulement ses capitaux, sa direction politique et économique ; il ne cherche pas à remplacer la race indigène par une immigration de ses propres nationaux ; il respecte et conserve, autant que possible, l'organisation sociale des natifs . Dans la seconde catégorie de colonies , au contraire , le peuple colonisateur cherche surtout à implanter sa race , à créer une société analogue ou même identique à celle de la mère patrie : il absorbe toute la vie économique du pays , il s'approprie les terres , et peu à peu il évince complètement les natifs qui d'ailleurs , dans ce genre d'établissements , sont peu nombreux ,clairsemés et n'ont qu'un embryon de civilisation ."

The other person Weizmann cited, Élisée Reclus, also wrote about colonisation in French. That's why Weizmann quoted them in French. As a second proof that there has been no change in meaning, I'll quote two dictionary definitions of "colonize", both of which distinguish two types. One is from 1909 and the other is recent; can you tell which is which?

• "1. To plant or establish a colony in ; to send a colony to (example: England colonized Australia), 2. To migrate and settle in, as inhabitants (example: English puritans colonized New Zealand)."
• "1. to take control of (a people or area) especially as an extension of state power : to claim (someone or something) as a colony (example: areas colonized by European powers), 2. to migrate to and settle in (an inhabited or uninhabited area), to establish a colony in (example: the areas of New England colonized by the Puritans)."

If we consider connotation, that is, baggage, then of course much has changed. But that is distinct from meaning. Zero^talk 01:58, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

I think the change in connotation is significant though. The 1909 dictionary here is an explicitly imperialist encyclopedia isn't it? It'd be interesting what a French or German (or Yiddish!) encyclopedia from 1900s said. The word "colony" was heavily used in utopian socialism, which was stronger in France and Russia than Germany but also had some presence in Britain, and would have been very familiar to the early Zionists. Early Zionists would for instance have been aware of the following, all commonly named "colonies" without implications of exploitation or imperialism: the Hutterites (1520s), Manea Colony (1830s), the Freedom colonies (1860s), Am Olam (1880s), Whiteway Colony (1890s)... (See also Germantown Colony, Aurora Colony, Amana Colonies, Bishop Hill Colony, Clousden Hill Free Communist and Co-operative Colony, Doukhobors, Edinburgh's Colony houses, Equality Colony, Kaweah Colony, Leper colonies, Ruskin Colony etc) BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:55, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

The Imperial Dictionary was so-named to advertise it was intended for the whole British Empire. Nothing to do with imperialism as such. The early Zionists (all of them as far as I know) were happy to call their enterprise "colonization" because in those times every European thought colonization was a Good Thing. Some evidence is needed to claim that they meant something different but no evidence has been presented. Many colonizers thought in utopian terms (the Pilgrims mentioned in both dictionaries are a perfect example, and even the British colonizing Australia did it) so that doesn't change anything. Regarding other languages, see the French I quoted above. It is not different. Also see here. Incidentally, I've seen a source that says that the German word Kolonisation, which appears in the minutes of the Zionist Congresses hundreds of times, was adopted from English. More on that tomorrow maybe. Zero^talk 13:01, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

An Imperial Dictionary that is nothing to do with imperialism, but every mention of the word "colony" is everything to do with colonialism... OK! BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:23, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

@Bobfrombrockley I think this comment could use some less sarcasm and still convey the same point. The current wording adds to a hostile enviroment for editing.

I do not think that this is Zero’s argument. A fringe minority of scholars believes Zionism to be colonialism, while many say it is settler-colonialism and even more say it is colonization (everyone who ever wrote on it basically, whether they used this specific word or others to convey the same meaning).

Zionists themselves called their early settlements "colonies." Some of their cities even carry this nickname to this day (see mother of all colonies). This is not neccesarily about colonialism/exploitation, as Zero has shown.

Zero brought this unanimous usage of the term "colonization" in Talk:Zionism as settler colonialism, and we discussed it for a bit. Bottom line: I was not able to find a single significant Zionist who hasn't used a "colon-" term. And I've checked Eliezer Ben-Yehuda, Ber Borochov, Menachem Ussishkin, Moshe Leib Lilienblum, Zvi Hirsch Kalisher and anyone else whose writings I possessed... Since then, a friend of mine has managed to put her hands on Judah Alkalai's writings for me. I have yet to receive a scan from her, and once I have it I will check for the usage, but I do not expect any meaningful insight. The word is absent from Joseph Weitz's diaries (according to NotebookLM, sourcing from his 1927-1948 diaries) but honestly... I have a hard time believing he did not use it. I will sometime within the next month aquire a scan of his 1950 book and check there too.

I've presented a source for connotation change in Zionism as settler colonial talk as well, you may be interested in that. Anyhow, you need sources to back you up.

I think you should treat Zero with more respect, given how he is consistently commenting insightfuly (in all cases, in my experience).

Even though I do not expect a meaningful insight from the Alkalai's writings book, I do expect a surprising discovery of online material I was unable to locate by @Zero0000, who will quickly and impressively prove how nonsensical it was for me to seek a book of Alkalai's writings to search for his usage of "colon-" terms (sorry for the high standard (>ᴗ•), but will you deliver?) NorthernWinds (talk) 20:56, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

I’m sorry you’re absolutely right I was facetious and we need more civility here. I will strike.

By the way, totally by coincidence this appeared in my inbox today: https://www.livecolonies.com/ BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:41, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

To clarify, I’m not disputing that early Zionists used the language of colonies and colonisation. The WP article article already correctly says that elsewhere. I’m simply disputing the idea that therefore they “characterized” themselves as “colonialist” let alone “settler colonialist”, and the claim that these current sources somehow support that. BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:42, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

I think that both you and Zero are on the same side :p NorthernWinds (talk) 23:17, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

References

Drawing to a conclusion?

This has gone on for a very long time. Trying to identify if there is anything like consensus in this discussion before it auto-archives. I believe there is consensus, and don't think we need a formal RfC to be able to determine that.

Keepers:

1. Onceinawhile defends the status quo, Various proponents of Zionism have characterized Zionism as colonial or settler-colonial, citing our article Zionism as settler colonialism as authority, although the text is not in that article, and Philologos as a primary source example of a Zionist who accepts the term settler colonial
2. M.Bitton defends the status quo, with sources

Changers:

1. NorthernWinds argues that the sources support Various proponents of Zionism have characterized Zionism as colonization but not colonial and certainly not or settler colonial [See below for clarification of position]
2. Cdjp1 agrees with the removal of or settler colonial
3. I argue for the removal of or settler colonial and a preference for rewording along the lines of Various proponents of Zionism [or, better, various early proponents of Zionism] have characterized Zionism as a colonising movement
4. Katzrockso rejects the primary source Onceinawhile provides but isn't clear on a preference for the wording [See below for clarification of position]
5. MarkBernstein argues for removal of "anachronistic terms", which clearly includes or settler colonial, not sure if it refers to whole sentence
6. Zero doesn't explicitly comment on the current or desired wording but provides evidence marginally supporting colonization

Two for status quo; six for change.

Looking back at the previous discussion in Archive 33, editors not mentioned here also include:

Changers:

1. DancingOwl argued against or settler colonial and for colonization
2. Andre agreed. [Subsequently topic banned]

(It is striking to me that not a single editor responded to the source analysis DancingOwl provided.)

And in Archive 37:

Keepers:

1. Smallangryplanet supported the status quo
2. TarnishedPath suported the status quo.
3. Buidhe suported the status quo.
4. I think Simonm223 suported the status quo (or at least was fine with it). [See below for confirmation of position]

(It is striking to me that only one single editor, Smallangryplanet, responded to the source analysis I provided.)

Changers:

1. I think Mikewem supported colonizaton and opposed settler colonial
2. Kowal2701 said the sources don't support the status quo, preferred Early Zionists viewed their project as one of colonisation, and felt it would be better still to explain the evolution since then
3. Airport master supported removing settler colonial
4. אקעג rejected some sources supporting the status quo but didn't articulate a position on the wording
5. Zanahary supported Early Zionists viewed their project as one of colonisation
6. PrimaPrime argued against or settler colonial

There was also support for removing Morris, no opposition to removing Liu, and support for at least trimming Finkelstein. There was no consensus on Judt.

Cumulatively six for status quo, fourteen for change. This seems to me strong enough consensus to remove or settler colonial. It might even be strong enough consensus to changing colonial to colonizing/colonization, but I'm not that BOLD. I will make this change, and remove Morris and Liu.

BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:57, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you very much, this reading of the consensus here seems good to me. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 16:01, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes you are correct that I supported the status quo. Simonm223 (talk) 16:10, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

There is no consensus for change (editors stopped responding because they tired of repeating themselves). You're welcome to start a RfC. M.Bitton (talk) 16:14, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Blatant stonewalling, as per. Bobfrombrockley, it may be worth listing the discussions at WP:CR, imo that doesn’t get used enough for informal but contentious discussions. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 16:20, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Start a RfC (the proper way to get affirmative consensus) and let an uninvolved editor decide what the consensus is (based on the policies, rather than some editors' POV). M.Bitton (talk) 16:23, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

There is nothing improper or against policy about reading consensus without initiating an RfC. It's completely standard. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 16:28, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

There is nothing improper or against policy about reading the clear "no consensus for change". Since this has been discussed many times, it is ripe for a RfC. M.Bitton (talk) 16:29, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

What’s your argument for there being no consensus? Re numbers, over 2/3s in favour of the change, and both source analyses weren't really addressed, contributing to quality of argument. We can get an uninvolved editor to assess it if needs be, but imo we shouldn’t need to Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 16:39, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Are you counting heads? What makes you think you can decide what the consensus is (unsurprisingly, in your POV'S favour)?

What do you have against the community's input (RfC)? M.Bitton (talk) 16:41, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

I was not aware that our policy requires a formal RfC for this kind of thing. We have discussed this three times, with hundreds of comments and a decent number of participants, so I just don't see the need, but I have no objection to an RfC. I greatly regret not removing the sentence when the first discussion showed there was consensus against inclusion. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:04, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

We have discussed this three times doesn't that tell you that it's time to start a RfC? M.Bitton (talk) 17:05, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

It would if the three discussions hadn't come to quite a clear conclusion. But the advantage of an RfC is to get consensus beyond the removal of "settler colonial". BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:11, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't think the discussions have come to quite a clear conclusion, both because we keep having the same discussion and because our policy does say that numbers of supporters in any particular direction is not an indication of consensus. Hopefully an RfC can get us out of the discuss portion of the usual cycle. Smallangryplanet (talk) 21:47, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

I was not aware that our policy requires a formal RfC for this kind of thing. For the record, it definitely does not. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:59, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Correction: I do not think that sources support that Various proponents of Zionism have characterized Zionism as colonization. Instead, I think the correct conclusion to draw from the sources (the "sources" being Masalha because only he commented directly on this) is Up until the second half of the 20th century, Zionists used terms like "colonization" when referring to immigration to Palestine. NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 19:58, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

I agree with rewording this sentence, though I would have to review the broader literature before opining on specifics.

The Zionists in question couldn't have called Zionism settler colonialism, as the concept wasn't developed until the 1960s.

I would provisionally support just removing the "or settler colonial" part for now. Katzrockso (talk) 20:42, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

It's unclear to me why there are editor's included in Bob's assessment who haven't contributed to or are topic banned from this topic area? TarnishedPath^talk 22:38, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Ps, I support the status quo here and discussions from a year ago should not be used in assessing current consensus. TarnishedPath^talk 22:56, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

I can assure you all of the people included in my assessment have contributed. Please let me know here or on my talk page if there are any that you think I have gotten wrong or if I’ve missed any.

I haven’t really paid attention to the topic bans, although it occurred to me after I posted that it was possible some of the contributors might be in that category. Is it a significant number? BobFromBrockley (talk) 00:43, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

You've included discussions from archives 37 and 33 in your assessment. Why? You do realise that discussion of this goes back further than that.

Per your question, it's hard to say exactly how many as some of the names you're linked aren't to the editor's actual page. I know for certain Andre falls into that category and there is probably more. TarnishedPath^talk 00:50, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

I included the earlier discussions as it’s the same topic. This thread referred back to both those previous threads. I wasn’t aware that it went back even further as the archive 33 discussion raises it as something newly added. Thank you for linking below to archive 24. It appears the a more awkward version of the text was newly added then to the lead and reverted. I think there are six participants in that discussion. Three - all now topic banned - initially in favour and three against, but the discussion comes to the conclusion that there is alternate, less awkward wording that would be acceptable to both sides ("There are Zionists who have characterized their movement as one of colonial settlement or exceptionalist" or "some of these positions are also present in Zionist thinking").

Presumably it was later restored against that consensus, prompting the archive 33 discussion? BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:10, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

RfC about the Zionism's characterisation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Which of these best describes how the proponents of Zionism characterised Zionism?

• A - Various proponents of Zionism have characterized Zionism as colonial or settler-colonial.
• B - Various proponents of Zionism have characterized Zionism as colonial.
• C - Early Zionists described their activities in Palestine in ways that now correspond to academic descriptions of colonialism or settler colonialism.

M.Bitton (talk) 17:33, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Background

For prior related discussion see:

• Zionists saying Zionism is Colonialism,
• "Various proponents of Zionism have characterized Zionism as colonial or settler-colonial.",
• sources for "Some proponents of Zionism accept the characterization of Zionism as settler-colonial or exceptionalist.", and
• "Proponents of Zionism do not necessarily reject the characterization of Zionism as settler-colonial or exceptionalist."

Survey

• Close this WP:POINTy and poorly-designed RfC, see , the discussions were listed at WP:CR beforehand. See related AE case Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 18:44, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
• SNOW close This is not two options, badly designed RfC. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 14:38, 17 April 2026 (UTC) VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 14:38, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
• Procedurally close this RfC, once again, since it was inappropriately reopened.Katzrockso (talk) 04:32, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  If this RfC must continue, I would support option B or C with no particular preference to either. I oppose option A as anachronistic (Polygnotus' point) and failing verification by any source. Katzrockso (talk) 16:10, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

• Commment, this RFC should proceed. This sentence has been the topic of various discussions for years. WP:RFCBEFORE is more than adequately met. I will be making a !vote and a later time in favour of the status quo (i.e., option a). TarnishedPath^talk 05:55, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  I think most of us now agree that an RfC should go ahead but not this one.

  This RfC was started ~40 minutes after a “workshop” on the questions was opened where all editors apart from the one who opened it have proposed different, less binary questions (and while one editor had made a close request on the same binary choice based on the existing discussion).

  We should procedurally stop the one, finish the workshop discussion there, and open a new RfC with the right questions. Processing with an RfC with the wrong questions will get us deeper into a mess not finally resolve it. What’s the hurry when this has already gone on two years now, as you’ve shown? BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:17, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  I don't see that any workshopping is going to lead to a better question, look at the trainreck of an RFC above for an example of how workshopping achieved nothing. I think the present question is very clear and focused on the dispute given the recently contested edit. This is more likely to lead to either a consensus for or against in my view. TarnishedPath^talk 07:21, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  Well already the two options have grown to three, so !voters were obviously unhappy with the binary choice, and more editors in the workshop have proposed different ways of framing than have !voted so far, and more editors have called for a procedural close than have !voted, so it's clear the community would prefer to finish the workshop M.Bitton started than to waste time with a broken RfC. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:37, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

• Option A Early Zionists explicitly spoke of their project of settling Palestine in terms of a colonial model. Many modern studies interpret this in terms of the concept of settler-colonialism. Demanding that the term appear verbatim in early Zionist writing before it can be used is a category error, it confuses a 21st-century analytical framework with a 19th-century political programme. Zionists could no more have used the phrase than Darwin would have used "evolution" in his early works. TarnishedPath^talk 14:05, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  Ps, I'm aware that Darwin used the term in his later works. TarnishedPath^talk 14:07, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  It seems like you're saying it's anachronistic to imagine that Option A should pass verification, and therefore we can verify a different statement and include Option A in the text of the article anyway.

  If it's a category error to expect early Zionists to have characterised their project as settler-colonial, we shouldn't say that they characterised their project as settler-colonial. If your evidence is that Many modern studies interpret this in terms of the concept of settler-colonialism, you should be arguing for a statement that says exactly that, which is a separate and unrelated claim to option A which is about how Zionists characterise(d) themselves. Samuelshraga (talk) 08:42, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

  Incorrect, if Zionists used language to talk about that their own project in terms that are now understood as "settler-colonialism" then no there is no failure at verification. Early Zionist sources themselves used colonial language and spoke of overseas Jewish settlement. TarnishedPath^talk 09:15, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

  Zionists used language to talk about that their own project in terms that are now understood as "settler-colonialism". I guess we'll have to leave it at that I don't view this sentence as equivalent to A. If your !vote were to include this sentence, I probably wouldn't have responded. Samuelshraga (talk) 14:27, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

  It's saying pretty much the same thing as A. TarnishedPath^talk 14:28, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

  It manifestly does not say the same thing. One sentence makes a false claim and the other makes a true claim. Katzrockso (talk) 00:33, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

• Option C is the least clunky and doesn't require time travel. Polygnotus (talk) 14:50, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
• Option C I'm receptive to the fact that the term "settler colonialism" wasn't in common parlance when early Zionists were discussing the construction of Israel but modern scholars looking back are able to identify it. We should treat this accordingly to avoid anachronisms in both directions. Simonm223 (talk) 15:11, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
• Secret option D and SNOW close per WP:POINT and because a very similar topic is in the above RfC and because the RfC is malformed since options A and B are basically the same. Early Zionists spoke of settling the Palestine region as a return from exile, as the region was central to Jewish history (as is described in the lede!). I disagree with option C because the term "colonial" or "settler-colonial" sounds like settling in a region as a foreign group, even though there had always been some Jews in the region. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 16:16, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  ... im confused about why WP:POINT applies, it seems a RFC done in good enough faith User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 16:22, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  The first two options, A and B, were basically the same, even when C was added there was still no option for anything else, like option D. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 16:35, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  That A and B are the same is your opinion (and you're certainly entitled to that opinion), but its not something everyone here agrees with. Eg @Bobfrombrockley's edit would indicate they think A and B are different, hence the need for an RfC.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 20:14, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  A and B are very different. Whereas there are some examples of early Zionists calling some aspects of their enterprise “colonial” (B), not a single one ever characterised it as “settler colonial”. BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:59, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  The choices A and B are pertinent given Bob's bold edit at Special:Diff/1349279597 and M.Bitton's challenge at Special:Diff/1349281587. As I've written elsewhere any good close would be based on the discussion and not merely the question and resulting !votes. TarnishedPath^talk 22:37, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

• Option C - seems to make the most sense per others above.
  actually, isn't option C basically synth? User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 16:20, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
• A and C are correct and effectively equivalent from the perspective of modern scholarship. As Arnon Degani from Tel Hai College in Israel explains in The Journal of Israeli History (February 2026) , "Zionism, which contained a sovereign claim from its inception, is, in fact, closer to the settler-colonial ideal type" compared to other settler-colonial projects. Degani shows how early Zionists viewed their endeavors according to what modern scholars call settler colonialism. He quotes Ze'ev Jabotinsky,

"My readers have a general idea of the history of colonization in other countries. I suggest that they consider all the precedents with which they are acquainted and see whether there is one solitary instance of any colonization being carried on with the consent of the native population. There is no such precedent."

And Degani then explains,

"As Jabotinsky emphatically argued in the excerpt above, the exceptionalities of Zionism do not alter the simple fact that when European Zionists decided that the solution to the Jewish problem in Europe was found elsewhere on the globe, they also operated within conditions and constraints shared with other settler-colonial endeavors: a formation of a new society or political order distinct from the one that they have left and yet not conforming to the one already present in the land. These circumstances are what led to the clash between Zionists and Palestinian Arabs..."

Degani shows how Theodor Herzl's apparently contradictory views also fit within the settler colonial paradigm, explaining,

"...the existence of these two opposing visions for the indigenous population – deportation and integration – corresponds to two basic strategies available to settler-colonialists in facing their respective indigenous challenges..."

Thank you M.Bitton for starting this RfC. -Darouet (talk) 16:34, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

And yet none of the sources you highlight say that the proponents themselves characterized Zionism as [..] settler-colonial, which is what Option A is claiming. Instead they show that subsequent scholars assess the proponents to have acted in settler-colonial manners. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:16, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

• A per TarnishedPath and Darouet. Zionist proponents used the language of colonialism to explain what it was they wanted to do, as do scholars. It is for this reason it is not anachronistic to use both terms. Genabab (talk) 19:39, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  “Using the language of colonialism” is not synonymous with “characterised themselves as settler colonial”. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:00, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

• Close This is a badly-formed RfC, as has been mentioned. אקעגן (talk) 19:50, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
• Close For the same reasons others stated above. NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 20:44, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
• A > C I agree with Darouet above that these are basically equivalent but the second one sounds too indirect. I could maybe get behind something like Various proponents of Zionism have characterized Zionism in ways that modern scholars would describe as colonial or settler-colonial. Loki (talk) 03:25, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
• Procedural Close (Summoned by bot) this WP:POINTy and poorly-designed RfC, see the general agreement of involved editors appears to be that this RfC clearly is not going to usefully resolve anything.Pincrete (talk) 04:39, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
• A per RS and the previous discussions. While B is not a viable option, C is rather misleading since early Zionists used terms such as "colonial", "colonization", "settlers", etc., to describe Zionism (plenty of RS supporting this). It's also worth noting that we're describing how they "characterized" Zionism, and not the words that they used to describe it.

  Every indigenous people will resist alien settlers as long as they see any hope of ridding themselves of the danger of foreign settlement. This is how the Arabs will behave and go on behaving so long as they possess a gleam of hope that they can prevent 'Palestine' from becoming the Land of Israel ... nothing in the world can cause them to relinquish this hope, precisely because they are not a rabble but a living people.... All colonization must continue in defiance of the will of the native population. Therefore, it can continue and develop only under the shield of force which comprises an Iron Wall through which the local population can never break through. _ Ze'ev Jabotinsky (1923)

  . M.Bitton (talk) 21:10, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

  A - Various proponents of Zionism have characterized Zionism as colonial or settler-colonial. states that the proponents of Zionism characterized Zionism as ... settler-colonial. Can you find a reliable source indicating that proponents of Zionists characterized Zionism as settler-colonial (rather than colonial, colonization or involving settlers)?

  Why is B not a viable option? Katzrockso (talk) 01:43, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

  You’ve given one primary source that does not support your preferred option A: in it Jabotinsky doesn’t characterise Zionism as settler colonial. In fact it supports option D, the alternative terminology still being workshopped in the workshop you opened above.

  As I showed in the discussion in Archive 137, no currently used source supports option A; no significant Zionist characterised themselves as settler colonial. BobFromBrockley (talk) 03:28, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

  The idea that we are somehow bound by the early Zionists' terminology to describe what any educated reader would understand today doesn't hold much water. Since this has been discussed to death, I won't be wasting my time rediscussing it, much less satisfy anyone with answers. If you have anything to say, use your !vote. M.Bitton (talk) 16:59, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

• None of the above - close RfC. The question is Which of these best describes how the proponents of Zionism characterised Zionism? The proposed answers A, B and C assume that the best description of Zionists characterised Zionisms center on the relationship between Zionism and colonialism. I don't think this assumption has been proven, and considerably more workshopping could be done to see which facets of Zionism should carry the most WP:WEIGHT here.

Adding to that to the fact that option A is quite obviously false (which is why no sources have been produced in favour of the idea that proponents of Zionism characterise Zionism as settler-colonial at this RfC) and it seems unlikely that this RfC is likely to lead to a durable consensus in its current framing. Samuelshraga (talk) 08:52, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

People voting for an option, notwithstanding the above, should probably also specify which sources they would use to support their preferred statement. Samuelshraga (talk) 08:59, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Indeed. For which they may find the source analysis in archive 37 (the second link in the Background above) helpful, as it goes through all of the sources currently used and includes quotes in context BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:15, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

• close the RFC is half-cocked. If it's not closed, I'll vote and comment later. Slava570 (talk) 16:32, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
• Close Whether it's half-cocked, half-baked, half-hearted, or a half-measure, I don't find any of the options acceptable, and think there needs to be more work on options if there's going to be a result that endures in any meaningful sense. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:37, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

  The RfC is meant to solve the issue that has been discussed (see RFCBEFORE and the recent bold edit). It's doing it perfectly (despite what some editors claim). M.Bitton (talk) 16:40, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

• Procedural close This RfC was opened less than an hour after the workshop on its wording was started, before that workshop could produce stable options. Since multiple editors were already developing alternative framings, the present RfC is premature. Finish the workshop first, then open a properly framed RfC if needed.Michael Boutboul (talk) 17:14, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

  The workshop (that I initiated by mistake) was not needed since the issue has been the subject of at least three discussions over the course of many months. This RfC deals head-on with that dispute (including the bold edit that claimed consensus for one of the options). M.Bitton (talk) 17:22, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

• My preference is to close/pause this premature RfC, and allow a consensual option D to emerge from the workshop above, along the lines proposed by NothernWinds, which would actually be supported by the existing sources. Failing that, option B is less bad and could be derived from the sources currently used. Option E, deleting the sentence, would be my third preference. Option C is slightly less bad than the status quo, but is ideologically non-neutral, anachronistic and synthy. Option A is just false, and requires early Zionists to have time travel powers. This position is based on my understanding of the word characterised to mean something like described, portrayed, depicted, represented, defined. BobFromBrockley (talk) 03:58, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

  Just state Remove the sentece altogether then. The question doesn't control your input. TarnishedPath^talk 04:12, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you for the advice. My preference, though, is for better wording (option D) but I'd live with option B, so why state something else? BobFromBrockley (talk) 04:48, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

• Close. The RfC was started without any real attempt to represent the options that had been discussed. A token "workshop" that lasts less that an hour, with the majority of the options proposed in that discussion being simply ignored, are not appropriate conditions for an RfC. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 11:02, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Discussion

is it great to have another RFC open while the first is still in progress? User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 17:36, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken, they are about different things. M.Bitton (talk) 17:37, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

fair enough. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 18:05, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Please can we stop this RfC and actually finish the "workshop" on options before embarking on it. Can we please then have an RfC in the section where the live discussion is rather than in a new place, so that new participants can follow the discussion and so they get archived together. Also note that there is an open closure request on the live discussion, so it would have been better to wait for the outcome of that. In short, we've been going at this for monthes, so there's no need to rush to an ill-formed RfC BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:26, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

I agree about two things in conjunction with various participants here:

1. With a split on consensus such as we have an RfC is likely appropriate.
2. This specific RfC is premature. Simonm223 (talk) 18:31, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

i think a clear question would be helpful, instead of asking to choose the better of two options. Is the question something along the lines of Is it due to describe Zionism as settler-colonial? User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 19:09, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Probably better to make such a proposal in the workshop section above, but I think this question is a very different one. The article doesn't currently in wikivoice "describe Zionism as settler-colonial", and nobody has argued for it to do so (I think such a proposal would get a lot of opposition). The article does say in the lead that Opponents of Zionism often characterize it as... a settler colonialist movement." and in the relevant section that "Zionism has been characterized as a form of colonialism or settler colonialism by various scholars." Nobody so far has argued for the removal of those sentences (again, I think such a proposal would get a lot of opposition). BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:08, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

ah. i see now... though i sitll do think having a clear question instead of a binary choice would make for a more useful RFC User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 14:08, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

• I would support procedurally closing this RfC so we can continue workshopping the question. I didn't even have time to opine on the question before this was opened.Katzrockso (talk) 18:38, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

  @M.Bitton needs to agree to withdrawing for now for it to be closed this early. otherwise, we need snow close. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 19:21, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

I have closed the RfC per the reasons mentioned above. Please have a discussion and then decide if you want to change it and/or re-open it at some point. Thanks, Polygnotus (talk) 20:34, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

@Polygnotus could you use the close template? people could still attempt to provide a response in the survey section. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 22:55, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

additionally, fair warning, but this is (obviously) among the most contentious topic areas. if an early close is likely to be contentious, many admins will be upset by a non-admin closure
(not saying that its likely in this case or not) User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 22:57, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

I've re-added the RFC tag given that the request for a close at WP:CR of the above discussion has been declined. See Special:Diff/1349383055. TarnishedPath^talk 02:48, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

If we're going to move forward with this RfC then I'd transclude from the workshop above the suggestion we add this option: Early Zionists described their activities in Palestine in ways that now correspond to academic descriptions of colonialism or settler colonialism. Simonm223 (talk) 14:16, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

I'll add it. TarnishedPath^talk 14:43, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

@Simonm223  Done. TarnishedPath^talk 14:45, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath Sorry if this is a stupid question but are you gonna change your vote from A to C now? Polygnotus (talk) 14:48, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

@Polygnotus, not at all. I'm merely adding it because Simon asked and there had been no substantive discussion from anyone other than myself at this point. I actually don't think C is needed because any good closer would look at the discussion itself rather than !votes for A or B, to determine if consensus was elsewhere; however in the interests of moving forward I'd added Simon's option. I hope that explains things. Essentially, no amount of workshopping this should change how a closer should close this, because the close should be based on the discussion and not the question. No one gets first mover rights. TarnishedPath^talk 14:52, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

OK, thank you. Polygnotus (talk) 14:53, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to let the workshop run its course as there are at least three different proposals for an option C and this one has not received more support than the others? There is also at least one option D supported there: delete the sentence. Why the rush? BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:41, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Defective RFC: neither A, B, nor C has the merit of being true. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:22, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Do you think we need a D, per one of the suggestions in the workshop? Or delete entirely as an option? BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:02, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps a more detailed description is needed. Maybe something similar to TarnishedPath's wording of: "Early Zionists explicitly spoke of their project of settling Palestine in terms of a colonial model. Many modern studies interpret this in terms of the concept of settler-colonialism." IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 04:17, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

That would be true. The first sentence is an example of an option D I could get behind: it would be supported by the current sources. The second sentence, though, would be redundant, as the previous paragraph already says "Zionism has been characterized as a form of colonialism or settler colonialism by various scholars." BobFromBrockley (talk) 04:44, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

While I wouldn't be against such wording, it seems to me a waste of words. Why use more to say something when you can use less? A does that. TarnishedPath^talk 06:21, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Comment By my count we have now thirteen people who said they want to close this RFC and seven people who have not said that. I don't understand what it will take to close this RFC. Does anyone have the power to stand up to M.Bitton or does he own the place? Slava570 (talk) 12:26, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

The !votes that don't engage with the RfC (of a dispute that has been discussed ad nauseam) carry no weight. M.Bitton (talk) 12:32, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

TarnishedPath's revert

The main part of TarnishedPath's revert was restoring a sentence to the article, that was removed by NorthernWinds in this edit, calling it SYNTH and UNDUE for the lead. From what I can gather, the text was added in late 2024, replacing the material discussed in the section above. The text is: The Zionist claim to Palestine was based on the notion that the Jews' historical right to the land outweighed that of the Arabs. Is it SYNTH? Is it UNDUE? Is it truly a core universal principle of Zionism, as the sentence claims, or one of many reasonings for the claim? It seems like there is some disagreement on that. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 15:23, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

@Chicdat not SYNTH or UNDUE. Also been duscussed previously. See archives. On my phone at present, else I'd post links myself. TarnishedPath^talk 15:27, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Definitely has. Many discussions from 2024 about it, often in conjunction with the "as few Palestinian Arabs as possible" sentence. However, it does seem like these discussions are dominated by editors that, through ArbCom or their opponents driving them out, are no longer editing in this topic area. Consensus can change, and though I have no strong feeling about the wholesale existence of either sentence, one thing that does strike me is that both are rather broad. Both assume "all Zionists" when we have another sentence of the lead saying Zionist views have varied over time and are not uniform. I think it's important to consider whether describing something as homogeneous when it may be more heterogeneous is the best approach here. We also use "was" in both sentences when our article presents Zionism as a present-day phenomenon. If we are indeed talking about past-tense things, we should be clear about it. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 15:47, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

It’s definitely not synth: the footnotes support it. I don’t think it’s undue: the cited sources are strong and diverse. I don’t think the “was” issue is an issue: this paragraph, unlike the first, is obviously historical. BobFromBrockley (talk) 23:58, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Many things that have been discussed around here are arguable, but this is not one of them. Of course the mainstream Zionist belief was (and remains) that Jews have the pre-eminent right to Palestine, that's one of the most fundamental facts about Zionism. Even among those Zionists who wrote of a shared polity, hardly any of them gave the Arabs equal historical right to the place. Zero^talk 12:14, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response (and for the rescue from the archive); I have major connectivity issues and do not know how much time this connection will last.

@TarnishedPath @Zero0000 @Chicdat The statement that the Zionist claim is based on the supposedly superior historical right is synth. This basically mixes the fact that the claim was based on supposed historical rights of the Jews with the fact that most Zionists viewed their rights as superior to the local Arabs' rights to create a new conclusion. Textbook case of WP:SYNTH. "History" is not even mentioned in the sources. The original statement in the body had even more synth which was removed in my following edit. What's left doesn't seem due for the lead and focuses too much on the conflict rather than the idea/movement of Zionism.

This article has a lot of source misrepresentations & erroneous sources I intend on fixing/replacing NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 19:51, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

I'd ask you to please make proposals for edits which are likely to be disputed rather than implementing them unilaterally. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:29, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Certainly, as you wish. Though I did not think that this edit (at least its synth aspect) would not be disputed. When my Internet gets stable again I will compile everything into list and post it on the talk page.

p.s I said The statement that the Zionist claim is based on the supposedly superior historical right is synth but it was supposed to be The statement that the Zionist claim is based on the supposed superiority of the historical right is synth NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 23:26, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath As it currently stands, the lead statement you've reinstated is not fully covered by the body (since I have removed the synth in the body). Please either trim the lead to match the body (i.e change to "Zionists believed that the Jewish claim to Palestine outweighed that of the local Arabs") or remove the sentence from the lead NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 19:56, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Firstly, not Synth (as argued by editors here). Secondly, I didn't see any real conflict between the wording of the body and the lead. Thirdly, in any case I have no challanged your prior removal. See Special:Diff/1347979094. Please do not reinstate the change unless there is affirmative consensus from this talk page per WP:CRP. Cheers TarnishedPath^talk 23:49, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

See the table below NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 11:43, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Your analysis is off. The texts themselves do not need to use the exact words "based on" or "historical right" for us to take that meaning from them. Your reasoning taken to the nth degree would mean that we should copy sourcing word for word, which would possibly amount to copyright violations. TarnishedPath^talk 11:51, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Many words would be acceptable in my opinion. "Stemmed from," "(was) rooted in," "(was) grounded in," "(was) founded upon," "(was) derived from," "(was) centered on," "(was) resting on," etc. "Depended in some measure on" is not one of these acceptable examples. Can you point to one of these sources who makes this statement? NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 12:15, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

"The basic assumption" just one example. TarnishedPath^talk 12:53, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

The basic assumption I make when I decide to order food is that the chef wouldn't poison it. Can we conclude from that that my decision to order is based on the belief the chef won't poison it? that this is the reason for my order? No, it is based on my hunger and the fact that I want to eat. The difference is that I may order food even if I believe it might be poisoned; I will check it for poison and eat. But I will never order if I do not want to eat. Likewise for Zionism, it is not based on the superiority of their rights but it is just an assumption.

Shimoni in The Zionist Ideology identifies 3 different claims to the land, and none of them are the superiority of their right. He identified one divine, one based on "historical right, existential need, and moral precedence," and one based on Buber's philosophy.

Do you at the very least agree that some of these sources do not belong here, or do not support the full conclusion? For example, Khalidi's? NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 19:40, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

My reading of Gorny is that it supports the statement, particularly the second and third paras from what you quote. As I stated above I see Shapira as supporting it. I see Khalidi 2006 as supporting it. Alam 2009 support it. Sternhell 1999 supports it. With Slater 2020 I find weaker support, but support all the same. I'm sorry but what you label as "Strick Textual Analysis against the Sentence" doesn't seem like very good analysis to me. TarnishedPath^talk 09:10, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath Alam 2006 directly says that The Zionist claim to Palestine is based on 'a historical connection', so your interpretation is probably incorrect. Also see that Slater says in the same book that the arguments for Palestine are based on history/bible. As for the rest, I have already said all I have to say about them. The table was updated from when I posted it so you may have missed the new stuff. NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 09:40, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Also found a statement by Khalidi about the basis of the Zionist claim to Palestine. Unsurprisingly, the 4 he speaks of do not include the notion that the Jews' historical right to the land outweighed that of the Arabs. NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 08:25, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Here's another "In 1896, Austro-Hungarian Jewish journalist and founder of Zionism Theodor Herzl wrote in Der Judenstaat (The Jewish State), considered one of the most important texts of modern Zionism, arguing that the creation of an independent Jewish state in historic Palestine would be the best way to avoid anti-Semitism in Europe. This Zionist claim to Palestine was premised on the belief that the Jewish people’s claim to historical right to the land outweighed that of the Arab Palestinians already living there". TarnishedPath^talk 12:11, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath This is the source I referred to here that I suspected mirrored Wikipedia. We have strong sources like Khalidi weighing against this. Some others:

• the Zionist claim to Palestine as the Jewish homeland is based on an ancient inhabitation by Hebrews of the territory
• Zionist claim to Palestine based on a possession that came to an end two thousand years ago

There are several bases and several Zionist claims to Palestine, and except this one source we both found (a 2025 source released when this sentence was in the article), no source says this is a basis. If the source is not a lazy copy-paste from Wikipedia, then it is certainly fringe (also I replaced the link in your citation since it didn't work). NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 13:16, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

I think you're going to need a lot better argument and evidence than similar phrasing to claim that an academic is plagiarising from Wikipedia. See the WP:OR/N discussion where another editor has tried the same. TarnishedPath^talk 13:26, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Ps, those two quotes are not contradictory to statements about historical rights. TarnishedPath^talk 13:34, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

At this point you need to drop the stick, @NorthernWinds.

Arguing that a reliable source is invalid by speculating that it's text is "a lazy copy-paste from Wikipedia" is quite shocking. First because it's wildly speculative, and second because even if they are copying Wikipedia, that just shows that they approve of the wording used. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:22, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

As I said on the noticeboard, the source is RS and should be taken seriously. Nevertheless, this does not have any bearing on this conversation since it is about existing sources, not whether the statement is true. NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 17:35, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

The source obviously has great "bearing on this conversation". If the exisiting sources were insufficient for you, they no longer are by the addition of this source. Is this discussion not resolved at this point? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:58, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

As explained on the noticeboard, whether this source is valid and not fringe depends on the meaning of these sources NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 20:47, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

No idea what you mean by this.

"Whether this source is valid"? You just said "the source is RS and should be taken seriously."

This has been a very time wasting and unproductive discussion. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:00, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

I think I was rather clear. I mean whether it is valid to use in an article. If it is fringe, it is not valid but all RS, even if fringe, should be taken seriously.

I don't think that this matter can be clarified further NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 21:09, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Source analysis

Source	Full Quote	Importance (Key Phrases)	Supports "Historical" Right?	Supports "Based On"?	Strict Textual Analysis against the Sentence	More direct statements on this issue
Gorny 1987, p. 210	"Despite this unequivocal conclusion Ben-Gurion did not despair of achieving co-operation with the Arabs. It was rather because he saw no hope of compromise in the political sphere that he sought other areas for collaboration, based on four principles: maximum political caution; respect for the Arab as a human being; avoidance of intervention in Arab dynastic disputes; and avoidance of exploitation of the social tensions in Arab society. Ben-Gurion, as usual, did not confine himself to vague theorizing. Two weeks later he presented the joint secretariat with a daring and imaginative plan: ‘Plans for establishing a Political Regime in Palestine’. This plan was based on several underlying assumptions: (a) ‘Palestine belongs to the Jewish people and to the Arabs who reside therein’. (b) The right of the Jewish people was not conditional on external agreement or the will of others. It derived from the insoluble ties of the Jewish people to their historical homeland. (c) The demand of the Jewish people for self-determination was justified by universal values of justice. (d) The moral worth of the Zionist enterprise stemmed from the Jewish predicament and its justification from the fact that the country was barren and no people, apart from the Jews, were ready to cultivate it. This set of assumptions was intended to stress the equal status of the Jews vis-a-vis the rest of the world, and to provide the basis for their superior right to Palestine. Thus, the distinction he drew between the Jewish people and the Arab masses became a basic tenet of Zionist thought."	"It derived from the insoluble ties of the Jewish people to their historical homeland"	Yes	No	Gorny states that the idea that the right is "derived from the insoluble ties of the Jewish people to their historical homeland" became a basic tenet of Zionist thought, not that it was based on the superiority of their right. The "moral worth" came from the fact that only Jews were willing to cultivate it, not from that their historical right is superior to that of the Palestinians.	"One cannot attempt to answer these questions without clarifying some of the Zionist tenets which determined the nature of the Arab-Jewish problem. Zionism has always adhered to four social and political tenets, without which its existence would have been pointless and its efforts doomed to failure. All these principles had a powerful influence, direct or indirect, on its policy towards the Arabs. The first principle was the desire for the territorial concentration of the Jewish people in Palestine, their historic homeland, Eretz Yisrael-The Land of Israel. This claim for a homeland, in the name of an historical right by a people not residing within it, implied, a priori, a denial, whether moderate or extreme, of the exclusive rights of the Arab residents." (key word: implied; not "was based on" nor anything of the sort. This was a consequence, not a basis.)
Shapira 1992, pp. 41–42	"The basic assumption regarding the right of Jews to Palestine—a right that required no proof—was a fundamental component of all Zionist programs. In contrast with other prospective areas for Jewish settlement, such as Argentina or East Africa, it was generally believed that no one could deny the right of the Jews to their ancestral land... The slogan 'A land without a people for a people without a land' was common among Zionists at the end of the nineteenth, and the beginning of the twentieth, century. It contained a legitimation of the Jewish claim to the land and did away with any sense of uneasiness that a competitor to this claim might appear."	"ancestral land"; "legitimation... did away with"	Yes	No	While Anita Shapira explicitly affirms that the unshakeable belief in an "ancestral land" was indeed the "fundamental component" of Zionism, her text rejects that the movement was based on outweighing an Arab claim. To logically "outweigh" a competitor, one must first acknowledge their historical right; however, Shapira suggests that the Zionist framework was built on absolute conceptual erasure. By adopting the slogan "A land without a people for a people without a land," the ideology preemptively "did away with" the existence of a rival entirely.	"One characteristic of European national movements (and Zionism was one of the later ones) was a plea for legitimacy, and legitimacy usually relied on a genealogy testifying to the antiquity of the nation, its historical rights to territory and sovereignty, the beauty of its national culture, and its contribution to textual threshold of the culture."; Zionists regarded the denial of an Arab exclusive right to Palestine as a matter of negligible importance. (this is from the same book as the original citation)
Slater 2020	"According to the standard Zionist and then the Israeli narrative, for a number of reasons the land of Palestine rightfully belongs to the Jewish people—and no others, including today's Palestinians."	"narrative"; "for a number of reasons"	No	No	The text explicitly labels this the "standard... narrative" rather than a foundational basis. Additionally, Slater states this narrative exists "for a number of reasons," which directly contradicts the sentence's premise that the claim was based singularly on a "historical right."	"...In Palestinian eyes, this history far outweighs the Jewish claim to Palestine, which is ultimately based on the biblical account in which God promised the land of Palestine to the Jews, who subsequently conquered, inhabited, and ruled that land until they in turn were conquered and expelled by the Roman Empire two thousand years ago"
Khalidi 2006	"[T]he Zionist claim to Palestine, which since even before the establishment of the state of Israel had depended in some measure on arguing that there was no legitimacy to the competing Arab claim"	"depended in some measure on arguing"	No	No	Khalidi strictly writes that the claim "depended in some measure on arguing." Relying partially on an argument does not meet the threshold of the movement being "based on" that notion as its core foundation.	"We’re talking about what the basis of the Zionist claim to Palestine is. There are four bases. One is the divine argument. One is the argument from positive law, in other words, the League of Nations, the Balfour Declaration. One is the argument from natural law, that is, the need. One is the argument from historical connection. These are the four arguments."
Alam 2009	"Zionism was a messianic movement to restore Palestine to its divinely appointed Jewish owners... Conversely, the Palestinian, whether his ancestors were the ancient Canaanites or Hebrews, would forfeit all rights to his lands; he had become a usurper."	"messianic movement"; "divinely appointed"	No	No	The outweighing of the Arab claim is introduced with the word "Conversely," framing it as a logical consequence or corollary of the divine mandate, not the foundation itself.	"The Zionist claim to Palestine is based on 'a historical connection': the presence of Jews (more accurately, Hebrews) in ancient Palestine most of whom left after the second destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in 70 CE."
Sternhell 1999	"Like all Zionists, Gordon did not recognize the principle of majority rule, and he refused to acknowledge the right of the majority to 'take from us what we have acquired through our work and creativity.' Moreover, he had confidence in the spiritual vitality of the Yishuv, its energy and motivation, and believed it was supported by the entire Jewish people. In 1921, he spoke in much stronger terms than he had between 1909 and 1918: 'For Eretz Israel, we have a charter that has been valid until now and that will always be valid, and that is the Bible, and not only the Bible.'... And now came the decisive argument: 'And what did the Arabs produce in all the years they lived in the country? Such creations, or even the creation of the Bible alone, give us a perpetual right over the land in which we were so creative, especially since the people that came after us did not create such works in this country, or did not create anything at all.' The founders accepted this point of view. This was the ultimate Zionist argument."	"acquired through our work and creativity"; "what did the Arabs produce"	Yes	No	Sternhell's text quotes Gordon basing the right entirely on what they "acquired through our work and creativity" and "produce[d]." This defines the right through active labor and civilizational output, not a passive "historical right." It also says that it is an "argument," not that the Zionist claim to the land is based upon the superiority of their historical claim. If anything, it can be understood from this text that this was the Zionist argument for why their claim is superior. At most, it can be understood that the Zionist claim was partially based on the notion that he 'creational rights' of the Jews outweighed that of the Arabs.	"...All this is liable to arouse understandable fears among those who are unshakably attached to the total and unquestioning worldview of the founders and who wish to base Zionism on the eternal historical right of the Jewish people to Eretz Israel."

@Zero0000, @Bobfrombrockley I think you misunderstood what I meant by synth. Please review this table and weigh in on whether it is synth that the Zionist claim was based on the supposed superiority of their historical right. One must ask oneself if we are interpreting sources correctly when the authors themselves state other things elsewhere (e.g. Sternhell) NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 11:19, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Of course, all these sources support that Zionists believe that their claim was superior (except Anita) NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 11:40, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

I agree with TarnishedPath's comment above that this source analysis table is profoundly misguided and if this approach were adopted widespread on Wikipedia, we simply wouldn't be able to write meaningful articles. Being able to summarize what sources say in our own words is a fundamental necessity in writing encyclopedia articles. Katzrockso (talk) 11:57, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

How can Khalidi's "depended in some measure" amount to "was based on"? NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 12:04, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

• it could help if you provide a meaningful rephrase you want us to consider instead of deletion of the sentence.
• seems extraordinarily nitpicky. We can all understand what these authors are saying.

User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 01:24, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

+1. I agree that the meaning is fairly clear. It seems to me that NW wants us to be using the same phrasing as the sources, which I've explained above there are reasons for not doing. They indicated that wasn't what they were after, but it still seems that way to me. TarnishedPath^talk 02:39, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Any formulation of the following is acceptable in my opinion:

Zionists believed that the Jewish right to the land outweighed that of the local Arabs.

I have already indicated that here, by the way. I originally replaced the statement in the article with that alternative statement. The important thing is that it does not say it is the basis of the claim. Many sources have directly discussed the basis and I have only seen this reasons currently in the article cited once, in a manner I suspect was mirroring Wikipedia.

Also, I do not think that pointing out Khalidi is nitpicky and do not understand how it could be seen that way. I gave one of the more "obvious" examples in my eyes and at the end of the day we are discussing all sources, so there's nothing wrong with discussing this one in particular. NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 06:33, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Forgot to say here that I posted this to WP:ORN (link) NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 19:56, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Commenting to prevent archival while we wait for an RfC NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 15:41, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

References

Zionists saying Zionism is Colonialism - RfC workshop

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

For prior related discussion see:

• Talk:Zionism#RfC about the Zionism's characterisation.
• Zionists saying Zionism is Colonialism,
• "Various proponents of Zionism have characterized Zionism as colonial or settler-colonial.",
• sources for "Some proponents of Zionism accept the characterization of Zionism as settler-colonial or exceptionalist.", and
• "Proponents of Zionism do not necessarily reject the characterization of Zionism as settler-colonial or exceptionalist."

BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:48, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Please suggest the various options that you want to see in the RfC. M.Bitton (talk) 16:52, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

I think it would be better to first have an uninvolved editor assess consensus then start an RfC if the result doesn't satisfy you NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 16:58, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

I've listed it at WP:CR. WP:RFCBEFORE says If you can reach a consensus or have your questions answered through discussion, then there is no need to start an RfC., if the uninvolved editor finds no consensus, we can have an RfC Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 17:01, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

if the uninvolved editor finds no consensus, we can have an RfC in other words, you'll only support a RfC if "the uninvolved editor" disagrees with you.

I'm giving you a chance to propose what should be in the RfC. If nothing is forthcoming, I will start one based on what I think the issue is. This has been discussed to death, so now is the perfect time to do the right thing. M.Bitton (talk) 17:01, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

I really don't want to go to AE. Can you please wait until the CR request is fulfilled, WP:RFC is very clear RfCs should not be held if issues can be resolved locally. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 17:16, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

I think that for something this controversial it's better to just go to an RFC. It only takes one person to start an RFC, so the only way we're avoiding ending up there eventually is if everyone agrees, including every person who ever visits this page in the future; even if it turns out to be an outrageously WP:1AM situation, it is entirely reasonable for the one person to say "well the people here aren't representative, so I'm starting an RFC." In a less-controversial topic area or a less-controversial question, sure, we should try something short of an RFC first, but for this I don't see how we can avoid one eventually, so (assuming we have enough WP:RFCBEFORE to frame a good question) it would be better to bite the bullet and get it over with rather than potentially waste a lot of editor time and energy only to end up there in the end. --Aquillion (talk) 15:31, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

@Aquillion: in case you missed it: one was started and quickly closed, so that we can continue workshopping one here. M.Bitton (talk) 15:38, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

I think the editors on this talk page have "RfC fatigue" at this point, as there has now been three RfCs on this talk page in the past few weeks with no significant changes to the article resulting from them. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 15:44, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm NOT proposing the following as actual options in a formal RfC, as it would be too complicated, but some of the possible actions might be (a) keep it exactly as is, with same sources; (b) change "various proponents of Zionism" to "some Zionists", "some early Zionists", "some early Zionist leaders", "some early proponents of Zionism"; (c) delete "or settler colonial"; (d) change "colonial" into "colonizing"; (e) add colonizing (i.e. "as colonizing, colonial or settler colonial"); (f) reword more radically e.g. to the phrase many editors supported in the previous discussion: "Early Zionists viewed their project as one of colonisation."; (g) delete entirely. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:10, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Let's start with the most important part. Which one do you think that is? In y view, your recent removal seems simple (two options).

A - Various proponents of Zionism have characterized Zionism as colonial or settler-colonial.

B - Various proponents of Zionism have characterized Zionism as colonial. M.Bitton (talk) 17:13, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

That's definitely simple and clean, although that's where there's already a clear consensus. But it would set the first half of the sentence in stone and remove the opportunity to improve it, so I'd prefer more options (including deletion). BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:17, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

What other options do you propose? M.Bitton (talk) 17:19, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Nine minutes before you asked this question I had given some suggestions on possible options. I thought, as we were "workshopping" that there might be some discussion of them by the editing community so that we could then narrow it down. I am not yet certain what I think would be best. Gathering multiple opinions first is a good way to avoid a counter-productive RfC. BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:30, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

By the way, it might be helpful if the RfC intro makes it clear that this does not affect the inclusion of the words "Zionism has been characterized as a form of colonialism or settler colonialism by various scholars." in the previous paragraph, as it's important for new participants to know that the article still makes that point even if this sentence were to be removed. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:15, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't think it's needed, though we can mention it in the discussion. Now that we have the two options, what do your propose for the opening statement (if one is needed)? Something simple and neutral.

I suggest: which of these best describes how the proponents of Zionism characterised Zionism? M.Bitton (talk) 17:18, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Now that we have two options??!! You proposed two options, I opposed, you didn't wait for other editors. Please slow down. BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:22, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

To be clear, I think we should wait with an RfC until we get an uninvolved closer to assess consensus. If this does happen and you still think an RfC is warranted, I think these are the best options to ask about:

1. Leave status quo as is
2. Remove "settler colonial" from the sentence
3. Change to "Several proponents of Zionism characterized Zionism as colonization (I disagree with this interpretation but it seems it has support)
4. Zionists used terms like "colonization" to describe their activities in Palestine

NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 20:22, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

I think that’s a really good set of options. BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:52, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Although (4) might work better as "Early Zionists used---" BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:16, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! In reference to your other comment, I think that the best option would be Up until the second half of the 20th century, Zionists used terms like "colonization" when referring to immigration to Palestine as I said above, but I do not know whether it will get support. It rests on Masalha, The Palestinian Nakba p. 38: Throughout much of the nineteenth and the first half of the twentieth centuries the terms zionist ‘colonisation’ and Jewish ‘colonies’ in Palestine were proudly proclaimed and universally used by zionist leaders and writers. NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 07:13, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

We should run an RfC, I think the current conversation is spread across three (or more) conversations and is filled with repetition and sprawling semantic arguments. We should all put our proverbial !vote cards on the table and see what the eventual closer has to say. I would propose options along these lines:

1. Leave the specific sentence being debated unchanged

2. Remove "settler colonial" entirely

3. Replace "settler colonial" with a time-period specific phrase like "At the time it was founded, proponents of Zionism characterized it as colonization." Smallangryplanet (talk) 21:58, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind these options, and like the suggestion of a time-period-specific option, but I think a sharper revision, like NorthernWinds suggests as no.4 should be included too.

I also think removing the sentence entirely is the option missing from both this list and NorthernWinds'. BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:19, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

A sharp and time-period bounded option would be ideal considering that this has been a frequent point from a lot of editors (that early Zionists would not have used the term "settler colonialism"), how about "Early Zionists used terms like "colonization" to describe their activities in Palestine." ? I'd be okay with a "remove it entirely" option so long as we're extremely clear which thing is being removed. Smallangryplanet (talk) 07:35, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

The issue is that it is not clear who these early Zionists are. Masalha said this term was used up until the second half of the 20th century.

Also worth noting something I did not think about when I proposed this sentence but does come to mind now, that is that the activities that took place in Palestine themselves were not colonization (colonization is the movement from one place to another, and therefore cannot be an activity restricted to one place). Masalha used the term "project" which could refer to the facilitation of immigrants, but I think he meant the project of colonization in Palestine, which ultimately refers to immigration to Palestine. "Activities" now seems a bit vague for me. As such, I think we should suggest my original proposal instead NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 07:53, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

I agree with an RFC, this is long running discussion, with previous discussions in archives. TarnishedPath^talk 22:58, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Note: I went ahead and started the RfC. M.Bitton (talk) 17:35, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Well that was the quickest "workshop" I've seen, even though there is a live closure request you should have waited for. Could you at least move the RfC into this section so that new participants can follow the discussion properly? BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:23, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

I think a workshop will be more effective if those parties who want to avoid an RfC will accept that counting heads is not generally how we ascertain consensus, especially in a charged topic area, and agree to come to the table to properly frame an RfC. I suspect the rush to start an RfC was to head off people saying "we have consensus to ignore the people who don't have consensus with us as a minority opinion," which isn't a great reason to be hasty but which is somewhat understandable.

Folks: in contentious topics formal discussion mechanisms are our friends. They help us to maintain a collegial atmosphere and to head off edit-warring. Simonm223 (talk) 18:56, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

+1 NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 20:15, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

You are of course completely correct that counting heads is not how we determine consensus, and I am persuaded that an RFC is indeed the best course here. I will add, though, that when you have a ratio like 14 to 6 against, it’s highly unlikely the consensus is going to be for. Also, crucially, this phrase has never had affirmatory consensus in the article: there was consensus to remove it when it was first added (see archive 33) but unfortunately we didn’t act on that, so by virtue of stability the onus shifted to getting consensus for removal (see archive 37). But the reminder about collegiality is well taken. BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:49, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Might I suggest this as another option, not to remove the ones that exist: Early Zionists described their activities in Palestine in ways that now correspond to academic descriptions of colonialism or settler colonialism. I think this makes it clear that it's not in the words of early Zionists (as those terms hadn't yet entered into the common parlance at that time) while also maintaining that there is a relationship between the self-description of those activities and what we now call those things. Simonm223 (talk) 11:57, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Given that an RFC is now underway perhaps that is a suggestion that you ought to put there? TarnishedPath^talk 12:18, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

I still live in hope that @M.Bitton will withdraw the RfC as premature and come here to workshop a more thorough one. Simonm223 (talk) 12:25, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

I reinstated the RFC tag. If you read my comments in the RFC, I don't see what further discussion prior to a RFC is going to change. The 'Moving "as few Arabs"' RFC is a good example that workshopping doesn't necessarily make an RFC better. Also, the posing of a question doesn't constrain discussion and any good closer should evaluate the discussion and not rely on counting !votes. Fundamentally what is of importance is that this discussion has been going on for years. It is now ripe for an RFC. TarnishedPath^talk 12:47, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

@M.Bitton opened this workshop, then effectively shut it down by opening an RfC less than an hour later, with options tha were not supported by other participants in the workshop, so I think the workshop should be allowed to run its course for a proper RfC to happen. Further discussion prior to an RfC (almost certainly) won't change consensus, but can give us options that will prevent this continuing to be a problem. The closer will also be hampered by the fact that te RfC was opened in a different section instead of as a continuation of this discussion, so won't be able to evaluate it fully in the way you describe. Yes the discussion has been going on for a couple of years and is ripe for an RfC, but delaying by a day or two to get the questions right is not going to do any damage.

Simonm223's suggestion has the strong advantage of avoiding the very obvious problem with the term "characterised" that could so easily have been changed long ago to reach consensus if editors hadn't opted for stonewalling. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:32, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

The horse has bolted here. There are too many contributions to the RFC to not continue now. Additionally the initial question shouldn't ultimately matter as long as the scope of what is being discussed is known. Any good closer of the RFC should look at the substance of discussions to determine consensus rather than evaluate how participants !voted and whether that conformed with the initial question. I would encourage all here to substantively engage with the RFC. TarnishedPath^talk 22:49, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

I think you’re right the horse has bolted. Or rather it was allowed and even encouraged to bolt, which is deeply unfortunate.

But surely the question matters quite a lot. Changing the question even just once let alone more times during an RFC is messy. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:47, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

The topic matters. The question in no way constrains what is permissible in discussion. I have seen plenty of RFCs occur where the end result was not anything indicated by the initial question. TarnishedPath^talk 10:07, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Also, because of the way the RFC was placed in a new thread, this good closer (assuming anyone except such a task) won’t necessarily be looking at the place where the discussion is being had. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:03, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

This isn't supported by the sources NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 13:19, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

I would disagree that my suggestion is unsupported by the sources. Especially if we count the sources you have erroneously described as WP:FRINGE. Simonm223 (talk) 14:15, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

TP has added your option to the RfC, would you two reconsider maybe? The option is obscuring some well supported content. Early Zionists had no issues describing things as a colonial project and later attempted to rebrand the movement as an anti-colonial nationalist movement. I do not think anyone has disputed this content and it is certainly verifiable. In my opinion you have weakened and complicated that fairly straightforward statement. fiveby(zero) 15:07, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Early Zionists had no issues describing things as a colonial project and later attempted to rebrand the movement as an anti-colonial nationalist movement. No doubt, specially for Herzl. But this does not mean that Early Zionists described their activities in Palestine in ways that now correspond to academic descriptions of colonialism or settler colonialism. This would require analysis of what Zionists said and how whether modern academic definitions apply to it, which none of the sources discuss.

@Simonm223 I have referred to several sources as fringe. Which one are you referring to? NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 16:24, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

I think, rather than belaboring a point, you should stop referring to mainstream scholars whose opinions you dislike as fringe. In general. Simonm223 (talk) 12:44, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

I do not dislike opinions. Any claim of fringiness is backed by my own research and source hunting. NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 19:39, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Too late i guess. I'd recommend tho taking Selfstudier's recommendation to have a look at Penslar's chapter to see just how much this option complicates some fairly simple content. fiveby(zero) 15:28, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Personally, I strongly prefer Smallangryplanet's and NorthernWinds' suggested wordings over this one. The consensus of the discussion in archive 24 (which included Selfstudier and other now t-banned editors) was "There are Zionists who have characterized their movement as one of colonial settlement " which feels like a potential compromise between the suggestions here. I strongly also think deleting the sentence should be an option. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:50, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

It is formidable how a discussion that started because of disputes over whether sources support a statement yielded a statement even further detached from the sources. None of the sources discuss academic definitions... NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 16:41, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN, WP:OR and WP:ONUS policies are being overridden by WP:Consensus required. I've asked for this restriction to be reevaluated. Might want to wait for this current RfC to wind down before having that discussion tho. fiveby(zero) 17:00, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Truly frustrating. When you do make your case, please let me know and do not forget to mention how the quote that I proved was distorted is somehow still up. NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 17:29, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

While this is the case, is it really worth having this as distinguished from the later section "Zionism as settler colonialism", where we state who there are scholars who describe Zionism as settler-colonialism? As it would seem a redundant point to me. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 13:52, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

• I have a question about the sourcing. When I made my bold edit based on what I thought was the consensus of the three discussion threats, I also removed two references that has been opposed and not supported in previous discussions (see Archive 37). The reversion by M.Bitton and comment at AE by Darouet imply we can’t change the sources without an RfC. How do we address that? BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:58, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

  Link to the specific comment for those who need it. I would say I disagree that a RfC is needed to remove the sources, unless they are there as part of the conclusion from a prior RfC. But I can understand the logic for there edit summary (pointing to the discussion) not being clear/strong in the removal as done alongside the main point of the edit (the removal of "settler-colonial". It may have been better to do the removal of the sources as a separate subsequent edit.

  Including options and specificities of sources as part of the options in a potential RfC I would disagree with, as this would mean edits to the sourcing would each need a new RfC (though with the intensity of this article, it may be no real extra effort compared to how it would be fought over anyway). -- Cdjp1 (talk) 13:44, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

RfC workshop II

• @User:Bluethricecreamman (Bluethricecreamman, @Bobfrombrockley, @Boutboul, @Cdjp1, @CoffeeCrumbs, @Darouet, @Genabab, @IOHANNVSVERVS, @Katzrockso, @Kowal2701, @LokiTheLiar, @M.Bitton, @MarkBernstein, @NorthernWinds, @Pincrete, @Polygnotus, @Samuelshraga, @ScottishFinnishRadish, @Simonm223, @Slava570, @TarnishedPath, @VidanaliK, @Wh1pla5h99, @אקעגן, @Fiveby and @Smallangryplanet, given the close of the RFC, I've moved this discussion to its own section for further discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 13:26, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

  As I understand it (I haven't delved fully into the history and wasn't part of it prior to the RfC), there is a dispute over the line currently in the article: "Various proponents of Zionism have characterized Zionism as colonial or settler-colonial." The words "or settler-colonial" were removed by some editors claiming a consensus, and some editors dispute that there is a consensus for removal. If an RfC is necessary, in order to have the minimal complication I'd frame the question as Should the words "or settler-colonial" be removed from the line "Various proponents of Zionism have characterized Zionism as colonial or settler-colonial."? This would neither impede editors from gaining consensus around various alternative ideas that were brought up for inclusion, nor would it make the removal of the content dependent on consensus being achieved on various unrelated questions. That said, Bob's comment convinces me that there's already a rough consensus for removal. Samuelshraga (talk) 13:49, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

  I'd like to see a multi-part RfC, of which the first question can be yours about whether "or settler colonial" should be removed from the sentence. @Samuelshraga Katzrockso (talk) 17:53, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

  Just gonna say one thing: in the RfC (and in RfCs in general) can we please give the sources cited with full quotes in a collapsed list at the top, with an invite for editors to bring more Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 13:56, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

  !voter are expected to read the previous discussions, there is no need to force feed them anything. If they're not sure about something, they can always use the discussion section and ask for clarification. M.Bitton (talk) 14:02, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

  But when I removed sources you reverted saying I needed an RfC for that. If the RfC doesn't cover sources, how will we reach consensus on sources? And wouldn't it be helpful for editors to !vote on a source-informed basis? BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:56, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

  Your bold edit was reverted because you falsely claimed that there is consensus for it. As for your question: there is a difference between being informed of previous discussions and being fed some POV. 18:07, 20 April 2026 (UTC) M.Bitton (talk) 18:07, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

  No need to relitigate my bold edit, and I'm not sure what you mean about "being fed some POV". My point is simply that changing the wording might require changing the sources or interpreting them differently, but so might keeping the wording, we need to achieve consensus on the sources not just the wording. Thus I feel it would be helpful if editors were encouraged, in !voting, to base their comments on sources. For example, Darouet brought a high quality source to the discussion (Degani), and you yourself have pointed to your favoured sources, which seems like a helpful approach to me. BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:18, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

  Just to clarify: are we rediscussing the issue or are we workshopping a RfC of the known issue that has been discussed? M.Bitton (talk) 18:21, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

  I’d like us to workshop an RfC that will produce a well sourced sentence, which will need to at least touch on sourcing to be productive. Kowal2701’s plea was a sensible one. BobFromBrockley (talk) 19:38, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

  Can I just check what specifically is being discussed where? There's three or four different threads open at the moment. Smallangryplanet (talk) 14:11, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

  The question is the one M.Bitton orginally asked in opening a workshop: what questions would an RfC on this controversial sentence cover? BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:57, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

• Here is my proposal, perhaps it could be a starting point. As has been explained many times, "colonialism" and "colonization" are not the same thing, and we should not read the latter in sources and translate it to the former. I think editors would be more receptive to any future RfC if it openly stated this distinction, to avoid the conflation between the two. The RfC should have the following three options:

• Various proponents of Zionism have characterized Zionism as colonial or settler-colonial (status quo)
• Various proponents of Zionism have characterized Zionism as colonial
• Remove the sentence entirely.

Lets not try to awkwardly massage a badly sourced claim until it fits the sources; certainly an RfC is not the place to do that. Just give the option to remove it and (if at all necessary) work on a replacement at a later time. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 14:25, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

later time I disagree. There is no better time than the present.

"colonialism" and "colonization" are not the same thing the early Zionists used both. Do you disagree with that? M.Bitton (talk) 14:27, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

If we are to have an RfC, lets have an RfC. Now you seem to want to relitigate the debate here. I would imagine that if we are to do so, we will reach what is in your mind not an acceptble consensus. Nothing in my proposal was incorrect; if you wish to adjust or augment the options, then go ahead. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 14:39, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Of course I want a RfC, but since you insist on workshopping one, we will do it properly. This isn't a game of "let's add all the silly options we can think of". M.Bitton (talk) 14:45, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

At this point you are making less and less sense, and I'm afraid this sounds rather like an emotional outburst. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 14:50, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

You've offered a proposed starting point, @M.Bitton has disagreed with the point you brought up - their contention is that since early Zionists used both "colonialism" and "colonization", so it's not the case that we're mistranslating. You've brushed them off without responding to their question. If you are here to workshop an RfC you can't accuse people of being nonsensical and emotional when they try to workshop the RfC with you. Smallangryplanet (talk) 15:08, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

If their objection was that we should in fact conflate colonialism and colonization, then, if not already clear, I disagree with that. And if someone calls my ideas "silly" without offering alternatives, I'm afraid that does strike me as an unhelpful outburst. Do you disagree? Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 15:11, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

As I read their point they were trying to say that this is meant to be a workshop around the central question (what would this RfC actually look like) and not a sort of moving game of jenga where we spend another however many months adjust[ing] or augment[ing] the options. You had raised a substantive point that they disagreed with, and when they disagreed, immediately refused to discuss. Even if you are completely correct, the point of the thread here is to discuss what we're putting in the RfC - it doesn't hurt to consider the possibility that something is worth discussing. Otherwise we're in for 300 comments and no RfC, and then another thread, and so on and so forth... 😅 Smallangryplanet (talk) 18:13, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

As if that wasn't enough, they are literally proposing an option that would need to be dealt with at a later time, i.e, they want the same issue to be discussed after the RfC. Go figure! M.Bitton (talk) 15:13, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Quite the contrary. If the current sentence is found to be unsupported, editors would have to go back to the sources and formulate a new claim that is actually supported. This would generate its own unique discussion. Keep in mind, there is WP:NORUSH. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 15:24, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Please let's focus on getting the !voting options right.

Everybody agrees the status quo (option A in M.Bitton's first RfC) should be an option.

I agree with Wh1pla5h99 that deletion of the sentence should be an option. I don't think anyone can object to that as an option?

I agree with Wh1pla5h99 that colonialism and colonisation mean something different, albeit related, so it might be sensible to differentiate in options between those. But doesn't "colonial" allow for both? Some editors might prefer us to plump for one or the other. (The current sources all support colonisation rather than colonialism IMHO.)

I agree with M.Bitton that we want to avoid any option that requires us to deal with anything substantive "at a later time"; we need to find wording that can remain stable after this. BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:08, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

differentiate in options between those why not have both?

Was a deletion ever an option? Was is the subject of various discussions that led to this workshop? M.Bitton (talk) 18:11, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Why not have both? I think that's probably sensible. Editors could explain which of those words they prefer.

Was a deletion ever an option? Yes, quite a few editors have expressed a preference for that over the status quo. If nobody wants that to be an option, though, editors can express that now in this workshop. What's the problem with it being on the list? BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:20, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

All this discussion about voting options (and yes, that's what they are, people are voting, not !voting) is making my head hurt. This is why we should avoid having a set list of options. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 18:23, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

I am similarly persuaded by the train wreck of a thread above that no options should be pre-specified. Samuelshraga (talk) 18:29, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

If we go by what the sources say, then that's not the editor's choice (since the Zionists used both).

The problem is that it was never an option. M.Bitton (talk) 18:23, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Does it really matter that it wasn't one of the listed options? Participants in an RfC are not bound by the options. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 18:26, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Of course it does: RfC workshops are supposed to be about what was discussed (to death in this instance). M.Bitton (talk) 18:29, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

If you limit people to a set list of options, then the decision becomes based on a headcount. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 20:07, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

The reason I did not include both "colonialism" and "colonization" options is because the sentence "Various proponents of Zionism have characterized Zionism as colonization" does not make sense. An movement (Zionism) cannot equate to an action (colonization). Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 18:30, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

This is a change I've unsuccessfully tried to make on another page. The correct way to state that Zionists used colonial terminology is to say that they used colonial terminology; or even better, stick with the source that actually says this and say that they describe their Palestine-related activities as colonization NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 19:44, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

This is why a couple of editors in the early part of this workshop productively proposed options along the lines of the following: “Up until the second half of the 20th century, Zionists used terms like "colonization" when referring to immigration to Palestine” or “Zionists used terms like "colonization" to describe their activities in Palestine” (NorthernWinds), or "At the time it was founded, proponents of Zionism characterized it as colonization” or “Early Zionists used terms like "colonization" to describe their activities in Palestine" (SmallAngryPlanet). BobFromBrockley (talk) 19:47, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Can also add "colonies" for "settlements" (per Masalha) NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 19:51, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

I feel the urge to say that SmallAngryPlant's sentence is also my baby (not implying that SAP copied; it's simply a correct (even though a little imprecise) interpretation of a source) NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 19:55, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Are you suggesting we replace the sentence with something along those lines? M.Bitton (talk) 20:19, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

In this workshop, I’m suggesting that should be an option in the RfC. BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:41, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

@Smallangryplanet is there evidence of that early Zionists used.. "colonialism" other than the nuanced usage of Herzl? NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 19:46, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

I think that’s something that can be spelled out in the actual RfC. Let’s focus on formulating the framing of that. BobFromBrockley (talk) 19:49, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

+1 Smallangryplanet (talk) 22:23, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

What about starting an RfC without a set list of options? SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 15:46, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

From my understanding, that is actually among the preferred way of doing any RFC. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 16:07, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind an open question "What should be done with this sentence?" and that would avoid fixed camps forming. It would require a wise closer, but that's probably the case anyway. BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:09, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

An updated list of options that takes into account "colonization":

• Various proponents of Zionism have characterized Zionism as colonial or settler-colonial (status quo)
• Various proponents of Zionism have characterized Zionism as colonial
• In the early 20th century, various Zionists used the term 'colonization' to describe their activities in Palestine
• Up until the second half of the 20th century, Zionists used terms like "colonization" when referring to immigration to Palestine
• Remove the sentence entirely.

Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 20:20, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

I already mentioned that the removal is not and has never been an option. Can we please avoid the repetitive waste of time? M.Bitton (talk) 20:22, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

According to you, that is. If consensus here agrees, I will accept that. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 20:23, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Nope. It's according to what the RfC workshop is meant for (workshopping a RfC for what was discussed ad nauseam). I suggest you read the discussions in question. 20:26, 20 April 2026 (UTC) M.Bitton (talk) 20:26, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

This is not a final set of options, and other people have called for removal to be an option. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 20:33, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Consider this very discussion the RFCBEFORE of removal...

@Wh1pla5h99 as explained here I think "activities in Palestine" makes less sense than "immigration to Palestine" and should be replaced by it NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 20:33, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm ok with this Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 20:38, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

I thought as much. Basically, the RfC was stopped so that we could use the RfC workshop as an excuse to initiate another tangential discussion (which in turn, will be followed by who knows what else, etc.). Great. M.Bitton (talk) 20:40, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

use RfC workshop as an excuse you are the one who initiated it... And for the protocol at least for the time being I don't support removal. will be followed by who knows what else will be followed by the best RfC we can produce and the best consensus we can form NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 20:53, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

you are the one who initiated it I stopped it and started a RfC when it became clear to me that some editors were using it for something else. M.Bitton (talk) 21:11, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Why in earth can removal not been an option if that’s what editors think is best (or at least preferable to other options)? BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:43, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

• Given a focal point of the dispute was the edit at Special:Diff/1349279597 by Bob in which they incorrectly claimed consensus, and that it was challanged by reversion at Special:Diff/1349281587 by M.Bitton, The minimum question for the RFC should be:

Which of these best describes how the proponents of Zionism characterised Zionism?

• Option A - Various proponents of Zionism have characterized Zionism as colonial or settler-colonial.
• Option B - Various proponents of Zionism have characterized Zionism as colonial.

Anything that doesn't include these options is ignoring what the dispute is about. I'm not adverse to adding other options, but am mindful that the more options there are, the less likely it is that any consensus will be arrived at. TarnishedPath^talk 21:14, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

I am not well versed in the matter for RFCs. Option A subsumes Option B. Option A is true in the limited sense that, in all the vast literature on Zionism, some proponents have doubtless said these things. Other proponents said other things! Some of those other things include self-determination, national liberation, emergency refuge, and following the lawful instructions of people charged with cleaning up the wreckage of 1945. There are plenty more! Why would we require that only this one, rather esoteric, viewpoint be discussed? MarkBernstein (talk) 21:29, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

+1 NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 21:29, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. In my summary of the three discussions I showed that there were a variety of views, including removing the sentence entirely, but that there was consensus that at least the “or settler colonial” should be removed. In my source analysis which started the second (or third? The one in archive 37) discussion, I showed that the language was problematic. Many editors objected to the word “characterised” right from the start. I’m leaning towards SuperPianoMan’s proposal of a single open question of what should be done with the sentence and leave it up to a wide closer to analyse the responses. BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:51, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

That's strange. Three days ago, you claimed that there was a consensus for option B. How did you come to that conclusion and what has changed since? 21:54, 20 April 2026 (UTC) M.Bitton (talk) 21:54, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Whether or not there was consensus three days ago is less important compared to determining if there is consensus now. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 21:58, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

This is like saying "the cause of the dispute is not important". M.Bitton (talk) 22:02, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

I repeatedly said there has NEVER been affirmatory consensus for the sentence since it was added. There HAS been strong support (I thought consensus) for the “or settler colonial” to go. There COULD be consensus for a return to the status quo ante and removal of the sentence entirely. BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:58, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

That doesn't answer my questions regarding the "clear consensus" that you claimed? M.Bitton (talk) 22:00, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

I think most people would rather workshop a good RfC than relitigate that. BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:04, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

I Think editors should refrain from speaking for "most people". M.Bitton (talk) 22:36, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

OK BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:52, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

If we answer this question, only to have other potential issues/problems with the wording of the sentence that we might want to change (or that editors repeatedly want to change), it would be annoying (to say the least) to have to conduct another RfC so soon. I would suggest (as I did above) a multi-part RfC or some other more broadly expansive way of asking question(s). Katzrockso (talk) 21:53, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

some other more broadly expansive way of asking question(s) How about something like "How should this sentence be worded?" It addresses the issue while not mentioning any specific wordings, leaving the question open. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 21:56, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

The issue with questions as broad as that is that it would be a nightmare for the closer trying to determine a consensus for anything. Giving at least some prespecified options will direct people to choose their favorite or if they are opposed to all the listed options, their alternative.

One idea is asking editors to rank the potential options. Katzrockso (talk) 22:04, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

The issue with questions as broad as that is that it would be a nightmare for the closer trying to determine a consensus for anything. Not necessarily; if people agree on a compromise, the closer can see that and choose that option. Heck, you don't even need a closer if discussion comes to a natural conclusion and consensus is clear. (Although, given the contentious nature of this topic area, that seems unlikely.) SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 22:08, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't think it is likely that people [will] agree on a compromise. Katzrockso (talk) 22:13, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

In my experience, even if there is no clear compromise, a competent closer should still be able to extract some kernels of consensus that can drive conversation forward.

at the very least it can help with disallowing some options to help focus on what is possible. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 23:08, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Also, it seems as if more time is being spent on deciding which options to include than choosing which option is the best for the article. That is not a productive method of discussion. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 22:10, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

People are free to suggest other options if they like, but I think its asking a lot to expect a compromise to magically emerge after an RfC has started. The voting is the compromise. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 22:14, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

I think its asking a lot to expect a compromise to magically emerge after an RfC has started. Which is why we should try and find a compromise directly instead of waiting for one to magically emerge. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 22:18, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

What you will get is a cacophony of discordant voices to shovel off to a closer. I think we are making decent progress at laying out some concrete options, which of them are you not happy with? Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 22:22, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Using "Zionism" twice in the same sentence is clunky, so I replaced the second instance with a pronoun. We could also merge the "proponents of Zionism" sentence into Zionism has been characterized as a form of colonialism or settler colonialism by various scholars. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 22:37, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

The pronoun is certainly smoother.

re the merging: We say that in the previous paragraph so that would be completely redundant. This sentence is about how Zionists characterise(d) themselves. BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:56, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

I still see the principal problem as being one of squaring anachronism from functional description. We have a situation where people said "we will do A, B, and C" and then later, partially on that basis other people said "A, B and C together constitute X". For us to say the first group of people said "we will do X" is an anachronism. However that doesn't mean we shouldn't note that A,B,C = X. The term "Settler Colonialism" arose in the 1960s. Of course that specific term was not being used to describe activities being undertaken in the early 20th century by those people who were undertaking them. But if the activities they describe are that thing then our documentation should make that clear. My prior attempt at a suggested phrasing was trying to square this circle. Simonm223 (talk) 14:46, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

We should not synthesize meaning from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of those sources. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 14:54, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Why not avoid this principal problem by avoiding the word "characterized", which seems to be causing such confusion? Why not just quote the key quotes and perhaps paraphrase what scholars say about those quotes, if it doesn't just repeat the previous para? Why contort ourselves over this sentence? BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:30, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

how Zionists characterise(d) themselves No (to the underlined part), it's about how they characterised Zionism. M.Bitton (talk) 14:49, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

These are already covered, and I don't think anyone disagrees with their inclusion. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 21:57, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

• Wh1pla5h99 you have proposed adding an option to remove the sentence entirely. Can you clarify if you want the following sentences right after that sentence to also be removed: "Joseph Massad wrote that, for political and ideological reasons, starting in the 1930s, some Zionist thinkers proposed that the Zionist movement should avoid using terms related to colonialism. Rashid Khalidi describes this move as an attempted rebranding of Zionism as an anticolonial movement." Because without the first sentence, the succeeding sentences don't make sense. Furthermore, even if you remove that sentence, there is the possibility that someone else will come in and add a different wording of that sentence. Instead of your option "Remove the sentence entirely", I would suggest the option be called "There should be no attribution of any characterization of Zionism as colonialism to any proponents of Zionism anywhere in the Zionism article." VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 08:33, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

  Basically, there's a difference between "Remove the sentence entirely and replace it with a better worded sentence on the same issue" or "Remove the sentence entirely and don't mention this issue in the Zionism article", where the "issue" is whether or not proponents of Zionism characterized Zionism as colonial. Which is it? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 08:36, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

  I definitely think that we should include how Zionists have characterized themselves on this issue, but it might not be so easy to do in one sentence. FWIW I would be voting for the "colonization" option, and if people think removal shouldn't be an option that's fine. Interestingly, here is what Massad actually wrote, quoting Kisch: In the 1930s, some Zionists were beginning to suggest a change in the ideological vocabulary of their colonial-settler project. FH. Kisch, the chairman of the Zionist Executive, noted in his diary in 1931 that he was

  "striving to eliminate the word “colonization” in this connection [Jewish agricultural settlement in Palestine] from our phraseology. The word is not appropriate from our point of view since one does not set up colonies in a homeland but abroad: e.g. German colonies on the Volga or Jewish colonies in the Argentine, while from the point of view of Arab opinion the verb to “colonize” is associated with imperialism and aggressiveness."

  It might be good to focus for more than a sentence on what Zionists themselves have actually said, without immediately segwaying into how non- or anti-Zionists have interpreted it, and then, if such an interpretation does not neatly line up with what Zionists have said, contorting what they have said until it does. But that can wait of course. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 09:29, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

  VR you raise a good point here. Personally, I agree with Wh1pla5h99 that rewording rather than wholesale deletion is desirable, but I think editors should have the right to !vote for deletion of the whole paragraph, or to state a preference for that over bad wording if we can't get consensus on good wording. (Pesonally, I am doubtful that Massad is a BESTSOURCE but certainly the Massad sentence is badly written: isn't "political and ideological" both redundant and a bad paraphrase of what he says? Why "Zionist thinkers" when he just says Zionist and gives an example of an activist rather than thinker? And the direct quote from Kisch tends to support a change to "colonization" rather than colonialism. And if we keep him and Khalidi, to make it NPOV we should add scholars who are less dismissive of the idea that Zionism had an anti-colonial dimension in this period.) So I would suggest that deleting the sentence and deleting the paragraph be options in an RfC. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:29, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

  @Bobfrombrockley @Wh1pla5h99 I'm fine with including the option of "deletion of the whole paragraph" with a further addition that such content should not be re-introduced into the article, in any section, regardless of wording – though in my opinion such an option violates WP:NOTCENSORED (but that's for the community to decide). If you think there's a more neutral way to word this content without banishing it outright from the article, well now is your time to make a suggestion.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 15:00, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

  @Vice regent Well figuring out the neutral way to word the sentence is the whole point of the RfC. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 15:03, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

  @Wh1pla5h99, sure that means we include an option called "Something else (please state exactly what)".VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 15:29, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

  I'm not clear why we need that addition. Consensus can always change later, but if someone inserted the same text elsewhere it'd likely be reverted and then require affirmatory consensus to go back in. No? BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:40, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

  @Bobfrombrockley yeah but what if they inserted differently worded text arguing the RfC rejected wording A, B, C and D, but they are inserting wording E? The question is, is that option rejecting merely the wording or the substance of the text itself? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 01:13, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

  I get your point @Vice Regent: but I feel that’s probably a risk with all options? I don’t object to stronger language but maybe the best thing would be to leave it up to a closer to give clear instructions on the basis of the determined consensus. For example, if the consensus is clear, it might be sensible to impose a moratorium on changing it for a certain period. BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:17, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

  In this context these quotes may be of relevance:

  1. Borochov: It is clear that this colonization has nothing in common with the politics of colonial conquest, expansion, and exploitation. The Jewish people possessing no power of statecraft and seeking neither markets nor monopolies of raw materials for production in favor of a “mother country,” cannot think of launching a policy of colonial politics in Palestine or of molesting the population of the country. The Jewish people aims at creating a secured place of employment for its déclassé, wandering masses: it seeks to increase the productive forces of the country in peaceful cooperation with the Arab population.
  2. Buber: Our settlers do not come here as do the colonists from the Occident to have natives do their work for them; they themselves set their shoulders to the plow and they spend their strength and their blood to make the land fruitful. But it is not only for ourselves that we desire its fertility. The Jewish farmers have begun to teach their brothers, the Arab farmers, to cultivate the land more intensively; we desire to teach them further: together with them we want to cultivate the land to ‘serve’ it, as the Hebrew has it. The more fertile this soil becomes, the more space there will be for us and for them. We have no desire to dispossess them: we want to live with them. We do not want to dominate them: we want to serve with them...

  ... And many more I can provide NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 10:31, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

  These are fascinating quotes. I feel probably you should save them and bring them to the discussion of what the right sentence is rather, but for the purposes of this workshop it does make me think that if we keep some version of the current sentence, we might want to add a further sentence saying "Other Zionists rejected this characterisation". BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:17, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

  We have secondary sources that mention how the early Zionists characterized their project.

  Other Zionists rejected this characterisation are there any reliable secondary sources that say that (about those who had no influence on the project)? M.Bitton (talk) 12:21, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

  A strong secondary source for this is Joseph Massad, see the long quotes added by vice regent at the very bottom of this section. Several other voices, including men who had significant influence, are listed in the quotes section. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:11, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

I have compiled a collapsed list of quotes for the RfC, divided into Zionist and non-Zionist. People are welcome to add and remove quotes though it would be good to discuss any changes. The list of citation footnotes is far from complete - please help fill it out. Note that as it stands the only Zionist here to characterize Zionist ambitions as "colonial" is Herzl.

Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 12:49, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. See also the discussion in archive 37 for the fact that Judt misquoted Burg. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:55, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Feel free to add any corrections/notes. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 12:59, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

What are these quotes for? M.Bitton (talk) 13:02, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

RfC Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 13:06, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

In what sense? Are they supposed to support a particular option? If so, which one? M.Bitton (talk) 13:09, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

In the sense that its a list of quotes that will be useful for informing their choice of sentence (out of the proposed options). And just useful in general for this issue. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 13:26, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

In this case we should probably just quote directly from the translated article, and also give the French Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 13:02, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

From the archive, but a point initially raised in January 2025 by DancingOwl: Judt misquoted Avraham Burg, who didn't say "colonial state" - in the referenced French version of the article he says "un Etat qui développe des colonies" and in the English version - "a state of settlements". Moreover, Burg didn't talk about Zionism in general, but specifically about Israel in 2003... Judt mistranslates Burg saying "the reality of Israel is a colonial state" in 2003. Burg actually said "La réalité, au terme de deux mille ans de combat pour la survie, est un Etat qui développe des colonies" ("a state that develops colonies"). In the same piece, Burg also says Israel faces a choice between "les colonies" ou "l'espérance" (settlements or hope) and that to preserve democracy Israel must give up "aux colonies et à leurs habitants" (give up on the settlements), making it clear that by "colonies" he means illegal settlements in the occupied territories. Moreover, this 2003 text signalled Burg's break with mainstream Zionism as he moved to the left, realising Israel could be Jewish or a democracy but not both. In short, he is hardly an exemplar of the category "Zionists". BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:03, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Judt mistranslates Burg do you have a RS that says that? M.Bitton (talk) 13:06, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

I just added the links to my comment, have a look BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:08, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Your comment is not a reliable source. M.Bitton (talk) 13:10, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes we agree on that. Thanks for the feedback. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:14, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

The links are in my comment, in case that's not clear. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:15, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Either you have a RS that states what you claimed or you don't. If you do have one, provide it here and if not, say so. It's that simple. M.Bitton (talk) 13:18, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

You would have a point if we were making that claim in an article, but... that's not what's happening. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 13:23, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

I have a point (regardless of where the unsubstantiated claim is made). Please read WP:TPG. M.Bitton (talk) 13:25, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

It's not an unsubstantiated claim. The English version of the French article contradicts Judt's quote. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 13:30, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm not going to do that, sorry. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 13:31, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

It is an unsubstantiated/unsourced claim that will remain so until proven otherwise (using a RS that says it and not some random editor's OR). M.Bitton (talk) 13:33, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

That's perfectly fine by me. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 13:37, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The English version of the article does not have the words "the reality of Israel is a colonial state". SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 13:25, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Do you see "Judt" in that article? M.Bitton (talk) 13:31, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Judt quotes Burg's French article, but Judt's translation of the French quote "La réalité, au terme de deux mille ans de combat pour la survie, est un Etat qui développe des colonies", does not match The Guardian's English translation. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 13:38, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Find a RS that says that. M.Bitton (talk) 13:39, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Find an RS that says your house isn't made of jelly. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 13:46, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Since I'm not claiming that it is, your example doesn't make any sense. M.Bitton (talk) 13:48, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Perfect. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 13:51, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Do we really need a separate source to verify something that we can check by simply reading both sources? SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 14:34, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Claimed such as Judt mistranslates Burg need to be sourced (to prevent people from disparaging what doesn't align with their views). If people are not happy with the policies, then they should change them.

As for your question: doesn't it apply to the root cause of this RfC? M.Bitton (talk) 14:42, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

What policy is being violated here? It's a matter of fact that Judt mistranslates from Judt's translation contradicts the original French and that translation differs from the version in English that Burg published under his own name in the Guardian. Any editor can verify that by clicking the links. Nobody here is arguing that we say in this or any article that Judt mistranslated; that would be OR, but this is a talk page where OR doesn't apply.

More to the point, what use is Judt serving in the article? He was a great historian, but this is an opinion piece in a periodical, not a peer reviewed scholarly piece, where he might have been more careful. Judt mentions Burg in passing. If he was quoting Burg correctly, I guess we could infer that Burg, a Zionist, was characterising Zionism as colonial, but Judt doesn't make that point, so that inference would be original research. Editors above have pointed out that it wouldn't be accurate anyway, as Avraham Burg was then an ex- or post-Zionist. Compared to Masalha, Penslar or Degani, this is obviously not a BESTSOURCE, so I'd say (and did say in the prior iteration of this thread, in archive 37) that we should remove it. Smallangryplanet very cogently disagreed with me. Nobody else commented. We had previously discussed it (archive 33), where DancingOwl and myself argued against it and M.Bitton simply said they didn't as a "state that develops colonies" is by definition a "colonial state". If you believe otherwise, then you need to find a reliable source that supports your statement, which seems to me a non sequitur. So, once again, we have never had affirmatory consensus for the inclusion of Judt. That's why it's good to get some affirmatory consensus via an RfC of what we want the sentence to actually say and what are the best sources supporting it. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:09, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm somewhat okay with the idea that we can't call it a "mistranslation" without a separate source. However, we can say that the sources contradict each other without needing a separate source. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 15:11, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes that's better. I'll rephrase my previous comment. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:34, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

I'll keep it simple for you:

Why are you citing and discussing your analysis of the sources in a RfC workshop? M.Bitton (talk) 15:44, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

They were making a good point about which source to prefer for a particular quote, nothing wrong with that. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 15:51, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

I see. Here's one for option D that was suggested by Vice regent:

Throughout much of the late nineteenth century and the first half of the twentieth century terms such as Zionist “colonization”, “Jewish colonies” and “Jewish colonists” in Palestine were universally used and proudly proclaimed by European Zionist leaders, authors and settlers.

M.Bitton (talk) 19:57, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Break

Based on Whiplash99's suggestion, here are the options so far:

• A. "Various proponents of Zionism have characterized Zionism as colonial or settler-colonial" (status quo)
• B. "Various proponents of Zionism have characterized Zionism as colonial"
• C "Early Zionists described their activities in Palestine in ways that now correspond to academic descriptions of colonialism or settler colonialism."
• D. "Up until the second half of the 20th century, Zionists used terms like "colonization" when referring to immigration to Palestine"
• E. Some other way of wording this (please specify your exact wording).
• F. Remove this sentence entirely, along with other discussion of Zionists characterizing their movement as colonization and do not re-introduce this content anywhere else in the Zionism article using different wording.

Does anyone else have any other suggestions? Also, can everyone give me a rough sense of which option they support? If there's an option that literally no one supports, then presenting it to the community will only result in confusion.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 15:38, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

What where did C come from? Please don't sneak WP:SYNTH into the options without discussing. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 15:44, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

I think a few people suggested some version of C in the discussions over th last days, so it's not sneaking. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:18, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Fair enough, but given that it is undeniably synth it should definitely be discussed carefully before being added to any tentative list. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 16:20, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

I've raised the point of why to include C more than once. Simply put: it avoids a direct anachronism without making Wikipedia unable to identify statements that are settler-colonial when described as such by subsequent scholarship. IE: If a source says "Zionists said they would do A,B,C" and A,B,C is something that subsequent scholars pointed at and said, "that's settler colonialism" we should specify that these self-descriptions were subsequently described as settler-colonial. Simonm223 (talk) 16:34, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

We absolutely should not, as that would clearly violate WP:SYNTH: If one reliable source says A and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C not mentioned by either of the sources. I don't think any of our options should violate fundamental rules of Wikipedia. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 16:37, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

That's not at all what I was proposing but do go on. Simonm223 (talk) 16:42, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

You said "we should specify that these self-descriptions were subsequently described as settler-colonial". That would be your conclusion C. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 16:45, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

My openness to C will depend on the sources provided to support it. If there are sources that say "X and Y statements by early Zionists are examples of colonialism/settler-colonialism/settler-colonial rhetoric" or similar, I would take that as evidence of C. If the sources don't make all the connections, I'll lean more to agreeing with the WP:SYNTH objection. Samuelshraga (talk) 16:56, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Of course. Though keep in mind, the article already says Zionism has been characterized as a form of colonialism or settler colonialism by various scholars. This sentence is supposed to be about what Zionists themselves have said about their movement. We are already clear on the fact that scholars have called in colonial. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 17:06, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

I'd replace D with Up until the second half of the 20th century, Zionists used terms like "colonization", "Jewish colonies" and "Jewish colonists". I'd also remove F as that hasn't been discussed and it's an option that would go against our NPOV policy. M.Bitton (talk) 15:47, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

F has been quite heavily discussed now. If !voters think it would go against NPOV policy (I don’t see why it does) they can argue that in the RfC, just as others can argue that A and C go against SYNTH policy. BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:31, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

See this comment for the RS that supports option D. M.Bitton (talk) 19:58, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

That source does indeed support it, and have no issue with it. Nordau & Gottheil also use "Jewish colonization" in the quote listed below. Adding "colonies" and "colonists" I have no issue with; It also solves the problem of saying "Zionists used terms like" and then only giving one example. The argument against including "Jewish" is that it probably goes without saying that we are referring to Jewish activity, so the qualifier might not add new information, but if that was how it was predominantly described then we should reflect that. Anyone else have any thoughts on this? . Maybe other variations like "Zionist colonization" (per Jabotinsky below) could be discussed. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 20:30, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

I’m happy with “the terms colonies, colonists and colonization”. I’d drop the “terms LIKE” as grammatically incorrect and vague, and not add the “Jewish” as it goes without saying and hence wasn’t always said. BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:36, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Options with the random addition of synth removed:

• A. "Various proponents of Zionism have characterized Zionism as colonial or settler-colonial" (status quo)
• B. "Various proponents of Zionism have characterized Zionism as colonial"
• C. "Up until the second half of the 20th century, Zionists used terms like "colonization" when referring to immigration to Palestine"
• D. Some other way of wording this (please specify your exact wording).
• E. Remove this sentence entirely

Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 15:46, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this WP:POINTY proposal should be ignored. M.Bitton (talk) 15:53, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

  Instead of trying to derail, how about you air your opinions and engage in dialogue. You are, after all, the one who rushed to have an RfC, so now it would become you to participate. Your recommendation of adding "Jewish colonies" and "Jewish colonists" is well taken, but I would say "colonies" and "colonists" are probably more representative and accurate quotes backed by the sources. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 15:57, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

  What was the random addition of synth? There are so many different proposals flying around and all of them are kind of the same and everyone's yelling about being pointy. Let's at least say what we mean, please. Smallangryplanet (talk) 16:58, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

  Option C here. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 17:02, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

  I don't think that's synth, it's what we say in other sentences (backed by RS). But we already say more or less the same thing elsewhere so I while I don't think it is random or synth, I don't think we need it as an option. Smallangryplanet (talk) 17:41, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

  Why are we all saying everybodys proposal is WP:POINTY? It would help to describe why before throwing that around? User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 16:57, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

  What is POINTY about this proposal? I think VR and Wh1pla5h99 have done a good job of summarising the options so far presented in this discussion.

  If we go for a list of options for people to chose between, I think this is pretty good.

  Personally, I feel we can word the "Up until" option better. At the very least, technically "like" should be "such as", but I think that's vague. I think there are better versions above, like "Up until the second half of the 20th century, Zionists saw their project as one of colonization." BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:58, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

  @Bobfrombrockley do you agree that every option in the proposal must be backed by at least 1 user? The purpose of an RfC is to resolve a dispute. An option that nobody supports is, by definition, not under dispute – because everyone agrees its not the best option. We shouldn't give strawman arguments to the community.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 18:07, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

  That seems right, @Vice Regent:. But what is the strawman here? The version I suggested in the post you reply to has been proposed more than once on this page. In fact I think for a while in 2025 the article had that or a similar sentence before it got reverted back to the “various proponents” per no consensus. BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:22, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Its worth pointing out that Vice regent added option D: "Some other way of wording this (please specify your exact wording)." Happy to leave this in if others agree. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 16:15, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Maybe do option D) other, please specify?

it makes the closers life hard but encouraging other votes would allow for more diverse opinions. (Of note participants in an RFC are always allowed to pick any option not specified) User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 23:03, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Option E needs to make it clear that if the content is removed it shouldn't be re-inserted with another phrasing. Otherwise we will go in circles. That's why I wrote it as "Remove this sentence entirely, along with other discussion of Zionists characterizing their movement as colonization and do not re-introduce this content anywhere else in the Zionism article using different wording." In Wh1pla5h99's above proposal, option E is ambiguous as to whether its the content itself that's objectionable or merely the way its phrased.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 17:14, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

I think "Remove this sentence entirely" serves the purpose just fine. No need to overcomplicate things :) Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 17:20, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Keep in mind, this page is restricted so that any future content can be removed and must not be re-added without discussion. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 17:20, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes, but that discussion must be guided by consensus. For example, just a month after consensus is found, it would be quite disruptive for say 2-3 users on the talk page to agree to overturn it.

I'm afraid, clarity is a point that is non-negotiable for me, and I absolutely insist on it. I can show flexibility in terms of which option you want to have in the RfC, but it must be crystal clear to the community what exactly they are !voting on.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 17:46, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

I am fairly certain that it would be a bad idea (and also entirely unenforceable) to add a caveat that says "Even if there is consensus to do so in the future, this content should never be added back". We should not treat future consensus with disdain. If people wish to attempt to change course in a future RfC, we can't prevent that. This goes for all of the options by the way, not just removal. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 18:48, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose any RfC that excludes the option that was proposed by Vice regent (see their specific option C): Early Zionists described their activities in Palestine in ways that now correspond to academic descriptions of colonialism or settler colonialism or something similar. M.Bitton (talk) 18:14, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

  Note: the option in question was part of the RfC that was closed early (because some editors felt that more options should be added). M.Bitton (talk) 23:13, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

  Yes it was added after you started that RfC. The options in that RFC are not required to be included here if that isn’t consensus for including them. The reason it was closed was because we hadn’t fully discussed the best options. I don’t object to including it as a few editors seem to think it’s a good option, but that’s not predetermined. at least one editor opted for it then changed their mind because they felt it was probably synth; if included, editors who feel that way can make their argument in the RFC. BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:40, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

  If we're going with broad options here, which seems to be the theme, we should not exclude any as much as practical. So I agree with MB that option C from VR should be included. TarnishedPath^talk 23:15, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

  Please see here and a below for the discussion of VR's option C. As I explain there, we should not include an option that is WP:SYNTH. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 23:25, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

  We include what the editors (4 so far) want to include and then let the !voters decide. If the options were dependent on the policies, than option E should be removed (as it violates NPOV). M.Bitton (talk) 23:28, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

  True, but I am taking anyone who has not spoken on this option to be against it, as I do believe that the rule against WP:SYNTH is a generally accepted one. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 23:39, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

  Either the options are based on the policies or they're not. If they are, then option E needs to go, and if they're not, then you have no excuse for wanting to exclude an option. M.Bitton (talk) 23:42, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

  You don't get to decide on behalf of RFC participants what is SYNTH and what is not. The option should be in the RFC as it has been proposed and supported as an option by a number of editors. TarnishedPath^talk 23:43, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

  +1 M.Bitton (talk) 23:45, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

  I agree with this. If someone proposed it as an option, it should be an option. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 00:37, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

  Agree. Same with the delete option. BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:42, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

  That's your opinion. Put it to the RFC and let contributers decide if it's SYNTH or not. If you exclude that option from any subsequent RFC, it will (using the rationale of those who !voted BAD RFC) also be a BAD RFC. TarnishedPath^talk 23:41, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

What VR has posted as options above see to be the most inclusive so far:

• A. "Various proponents of Zionism have characterized it as colonial or settler-colonial" (status quo)
• B. "Various proponents of Zionism have characterized it as colonial"
• C "Early Zionists described their activities in Palestine in ways that now correspond to academic descriptions of colonialism or settler colonialism."
• D. "Up until the second half of the 20th century, Zionists used terms like "colonization" when referring to immigration to Palestine"
• E. Some other way of wording this (please specify your exact wording).
• F. Remove this sentence entirely, along with other discussion of Zionists characterizing their movement as colonization and do not re-introduce this content anywhere else in the Zionism article using different wording.

TarnishedPath^talk 23:49, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Support these options for the RFC. TarnishedPath^talk 23:50, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Support. M.Bitton (talk) 23:56, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Again, C is synth, and changing F has been rejected multiple times. I think we have made our opinions clear, let's allow others time to respond. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 00:01, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Again, "Well, you know, that's just like uh, your opinion, man". Put the options to the people and let them make their arguments for why they see their preferences as best fitting into WP:PAG. TarnishedPath^talk 00:10, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

To avoid wasting time, I will ping the other editors who want to include option C (including those who !voted for it in the closed RfC), namely: LokiTheLiar, Darouet, Simonm223, Polygnotus, Vice regent. Please notify whomever else I forgot. M.Bitton (talk) 00:17, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

What is the rush? Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 00:24, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Is it correct to ping the people that agree with you only? BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:14, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi all, I'm monitoring RfC's. I just thought I would point to latest guidance about changing the RfC Question: Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Changing the RfC question. Additional options can be added after the first timestamp. Feel free to ask for a second opinion after opening at WT:RFC. Dw31415 (talk) 00:13, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

The above rfc would fall cleanly in line with the other examples i placed where many editors were calling for procedural close or badrfc. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 00:27, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

RfCs are as unpredictable as their result (and I've had the misfortune of seeing the worst of them). M.Bitton (talk) 00:44, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Are we seriously voting on options for an RfC? Why not just start an RfC that says "how should this sentence be worded"?

Also, option A is not the status quo any longer, as I replaced the second occurrence of "Zionism" with "it". SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 00:25, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

And yes, I mean "voting", not "!voting", because both TarnishedPath and M.Bitton provided no explanation for their support. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 00:26, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes, we are, because sadly an editor seems to think that they can impose their choice and exclude what they don't agree with. M.Bitton (talk) 00:29, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

I was quite willing to accept your non-synth suggestions. I will maintain that we should exclude synth from the options, and for good reason: if it is chosen then it will inevitably lead to more bickering here or at ORN until it is removed, because it is original research, and original research is not allowed. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 00:43, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

It isn't really possible to exclude certain options because people will support whichever wording they prefer regardless of whether it is in the list or not. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 00:50, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

What part of "that's your opinion" are you not understanding? TarnishedPath^talk 00:55, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

@SuperPianoMan9167, thanks for that correction. It also affected B. I've updated the options. TarnishedPath^talk 00:39, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

You're welcome. It's just clunky to use the same word twice in the same sentence when pronouns exist. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 00:41, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

What are the current options? Guz13 (talk) 01:54, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

I think this is a good list of what has been discussed so far. Katzrockso (talk) 06:49, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

If we're going with a list rather than SuperPianoMan9167's proposal of an open question, I think this is almost there. However:

• I think D can be worded far better, e.g. to one of the versions that has been proposed above, because "terms like" is grammatically incorrect and vague ("such as" is the grammatically correct alternative, but that still begs the question of what other terms are like this) and because "immigration to Palestine" is too restrictive. Better formulations are available on this talk page, e.g. "Early Zionists saw their project as one of colonization."
• I think on reflection that adding "and do not re-introduce this content anywhere else in the Zionism article using different wording" to the end of F is unnecessary and loads the dice agaist this option, making it seem more nuclear than it is. In effect, any of the options implies that editors comply with the spirit as well as letter of the consensus, and a closer can give specific instructions like this after determining the consensus. It should simply say "Remove this sentence entirely." (Also note that the bit sayinh "other discussion of Zionists characterizing their movement as colonization" is weird here, as those arguing for the removal of the sentence are generally not against the term "colonization"; they are against the terms "colonial" and especially "colonialism" and "settler colonial(ism)", so this is an option that literally nobody has asked for.
• I personally feel C might be SYNTH (as did a couple of !voters in the truncated RfC) but I have no objection to including it as an option. The one editor standing out against it needs to drop the stick as several editors want it.

Can I plead we not open the RfC until the D and F issues have been ironed out. It seems the others all have broad agreement now. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:32, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Agree with this. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 08:05, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

@Bobfrombrockley since we agree here, can I ask who exactly supports option D and F?If no one, these options should be dropped. If someone supports them, then I have a few questions for them.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 12:41, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

If no one is supporting them, best to drop. Unless we have good reason to believe that they would be options !voted on during an RFC. TarnishedPath^talk 12:49, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

I like option D but I also don't mind some other proposals. I am honestly exhausted from discussing this RfC NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 13:17, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Support D, just remove F its pointless at this point. If you remove D we will have a repeat of last time as the options will be exactly the same, and people's concerns will have been ignored yet again. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 13:24, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

If we had an RfC with these options, I'd !vote for a better worded version of D, as I did in the RFCBEFORE discussions, including when we discussed this twice in 2025 (see the archives linked at the top of this thread). (Just glancing at the sources we currently cite, they almost all use "colonize" and none of them use "settler colonial".)

If we were ranking options in an RfC I'd vote for deletion in preference to option A, which is straightforwardly incorrect, or C, because of its SYNTH and POV problems. Again, deletion was one of the very first proposals in the RFCBEFORE discussion:

(Accordingly, either better sources need to be provided, or this sentence should be removed altogether. and Agree. Would just delete sentence. I always found it clunky and odd. BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:31, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

It sounds to me then deletion is no one's first choice? Also, why don't you present a better worded version of D right now? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 20:45, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

1. Until the mid-20th century, Zionists used terminology related to 'colonization' when describing immigration and settlement efforts in Palestine
2. Until the mid-20th century, Zionists used 'colonization' terminology when referring to immigration and settlement efforts in Palestine

NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 20:50, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

The bar for inclusion of options is not if someone says its their "first choice". Its if people here agree that it worth including, and evidently they do (as it was originally written). Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 21:04, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Sounds good, @TarnishedPath can you update option D with one of NorthernWinds' options? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 21:13, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

I don’t think it matters if deletes anybody’s first choice or not. A few people have expressed a desire for it, and I think it’s not unlikely that in an RfC editors with differing preferences would see it as a less bad option than wording they think is straightforwardly wrong. BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:23, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Yeah but it sounds like you don't want this deleted, but rather you don't want options that either violate WP:V or WP:SYNTH, correct? And what happens when this sentence is deleted, but "Joseph Massad wrote that, for political and ideological reasons, starting in the 1930s, some Zionist thinkers proposed that the Zionist movement should avoid using terms related to colonialism" retained. Those sentences don't make sense without some indication that Zionists had used certain colonial terminology. So in option E, do those sentences get removed too? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 21:43, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

The solution to that would be, instead of deletion, adding an option that reads According to Massad, various proponents of Zionism have characterized it as colonial. I would be ok with that. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 21:48, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Why would you attribute an undisputed fact? M.Bitton (talk) 21:50, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

I see the problem you raise VR. Given that Massad said something slightly different from what we say he did, I think we need to modify the second sentence anyway. I wonder if we should do so now if that would be reverted as pre-emptive. But I don’t think the Massad sentence relies on the first sentence. BobFromBrockley (talk) 02:12, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Irrelevant personal conflict

While I would respond to you, I believe that your behaviour on this project, particularly in this and adjacent areas, have led to a recent decision to ban you from it completely. Therefore I think there is no need to take the bait. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 21:55, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

@Wh1pla5h99: The ruling in WP:ARBMAG will not take effect until the arbs have finished voting on the proposed decision. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 21:57, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Also, it refers to the Maghreb region, which has an easternmost extent of Libya; not relating here (I might be wrong on this). VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 21:59, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

I did not mean to say geographically adjacent; clearly there is overlap between North Africa and Middle Eastern contentious topics. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 22:03, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Unless I am reading this wrong (please correct me if so), the decision has effectively passed. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 22:02, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

None of the remedies will take effect until the final decision is posted. You treating M.Bitton as if they are already banned is preemptive gravedancing. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 22:04, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

I was stating that I did not see it necessary to respond to a flippant response. That is my opinion; it is certainly not "dancing". Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 22:06, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Saying "I don't need to respond to you because you're about to be banned" is incivil. That's what I mean by "gravedancing". SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 22:13, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

What is uncivil is the behaviour that has led to such a decision, my friend. I am going to move on from this now; you are entitled to your opinion as I am to mine. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 22:20, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

This isn't the place for this. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:31, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

@Bobfrombrockley this is exactly what I mean. If the sentence is removed entirely, the sentence subsequent to it will need to be modified in some small way to make sense again. @Wh1pla5h99's proposal (According to Massad, various proponents of Zionism have characterized it as colonial) could make sense, but it needs to be clarified that "Remove this sentence entirely" actually means to move some of the content in F into a subsequent sentence. So it seems we have two versions of "Remove this sentence":

• Remove this sentence entirely, along with other discussion of Zionists characterizing their movement as colonization and do not re-introduce this content anywhere else in the Zionism article using different wording.
• Remove this sentence entirely, but modify subsequent sentence to say, According to Massad, various proponents of Zionism have characterized it as colonial.

VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 22:05, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

You continuously complicate the proposed wording for no apparent reason. The sentence According to Joseph Massad, various proponents of Zionism have characterized it as colonial is a replacement for the current sentence, just like the other options. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 22:10, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

A rendition of the second two sentences that was more faithful to the sources would be as follows, which could stand regardless of the first sentence:

Massad argues that, in the 1930s, some Zionists began to suggest a change in their ideological vocabulary away from the term “colonization”. Khalidi argues that Zionism sought to rebrand itself as anticolonial after 1939.

Can I change this now, or is this going to cause controversy? BobFromBrockley (talk) 02:22, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

@Bobfrombrockley: "ideological vocabulary away from the term “colonization” implies Zionists used "colonization" vocabulary at some point in time. There's no other way to read this. You keep arguing against my point my proving my point to be true. If the first sentence is removed, do you or do you not want the substance of the first sentence to exist anywhere in the article?

Or perhaps your proposal is to replace:

Various proponents of Zionism have characterized it as colonial or settler-colonial. Joseph Massad wrote that, for political and ideological reasons, starting in the 1930s, some Zionist thinkers proposed that the Zionist movement should avoid using terms related to colonialism. Rashid Khalidi describes this move as an attempted rebranding of Zionism as an anticolonial movement.

with

Massad argues that, in the 1930s, some Zionists began to suggest a change in their ideological vocabulary away from the term “colonization”. Khalidi argues that Zionism sought to rebrand itself as anticolonial after 1939.

? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 06:17, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

For me the issue here is about using sources to say something other than the sources say. We are currently misrepresenting sources including Massad, so we need to change the text. The substance is the first sentence now is NOT that “Zionists used ‘colonization’ vocabulary at some point in time” but that Zionists called themselves colonial or settler colonial, a different claim. However, even if we don’t edit the Massad sentence. I don’t think it requires the first sentence to be in place to stand on its own. A paragraph with just the Massad and Khalidi sentences would not be confusing to readers. But if I’m alone and thinking that, maybe it’s simpler to make option F delete the whole paragraph; I guess that’d be OK. BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:53, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

make option F delete the whole paragraph - I'm ok with that as an option as long as its clearly stated, something like this, because it is clear.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 07:47, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Also, to be clear, my preference would be you not make the proposed change that deals directly with the heart of the dispute: Massad actually says "some Zionists were beginning to suggest a change in the ideological vocabulary of their colonial-settler project" (emphasis added). By making that change, you'd be partially pre-deciding the outcome of the RfC.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 06:45, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Support.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 12:42, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

• As RfC options, A, B, C, and D all seem reasonable (I'm going off of this version: TarnishedPath^talk 23:49, 21 April 2026 (UTC)). I oppose E ("please propose your own text") as a formal RfC option because it seems to open a can of worms and makes the RfC outcome harder to evaluate. For F: Bobfrombrockley states that the wording is too unreasonable and makes it unlikely to win support even if some might want to support something like it. So: can people who support a "removal" option please propose a best version of this text that you believe best reflects reality and scholarship? -Darouet (talk) 15:05, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

  Wouldn't just "Remove the sentence entirely" work as an option? BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:33, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

  Even if you don't have that option you can't really prevent someone from proposing a different wording. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 21:14, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

  It’s quite common in RfCs isn’t it for “something else” to be a formal choice, and very common that people say this even when it isn’t. BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:26, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

  This version of F is unacceptable for two reasons:

  • along with other discussion of Zionists characterizing their movement as colonization - the issue has never been “Zionists characterizing their movement as colonization” but rather “Zionists characterizing their movement as colonial or settler”. Inserting this different wording here is misleading. The rest of the paragraph doesn’t rely on the sentence, and could easily be reworded if editors felt it would. In fact we could reword it now to reflect what Massad actually said, as I suggest above
  • and do not re-introduce this content anywhere else in the Zionism article using different wording - This is completely unnecessary, loading the dice against this option. If we have this for option F, we must also add it to options B, C, and D, which also remove content.

  BobFromBrockley (talk) 02:45, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

  @Bobfrombrockley would it help if we replace "colonization" with "colonization/colonial"? Otherwise, I'm fine with also replacing "colonization" with "colonial or settler" as a compromise. Secondly, how can you say "This is completely unnecessary" when, there exist two sentences right after the sentence that depend on it, and, you yourself proposed to add this content in a different sentence

  VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 06:39, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

  I guess along with other descriptions of Zionists characterizing their movement as colonial or settler colonial would do the work you think is needed and be acceptable to me.

  As a compromise, I could live with adding and do not re-introduce this content anywhere else in the Zionism article using different wording to F if it is also added to B, C and D. However, I don’t see any need for it, for the reasons given by Samuelshraga, and no F advocate has asked for it. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:21, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

  I think the concern (which I feel is valid) is that the "minimalistic" version of F could become a motte-and-bailey choice if adapted. That is to say - my reading of Samuelshraga's argument is "we don't need to explicitly say that it would prevent people from re-introducing alternative wordings elsewhere, because that's obviously in the spirit of it" but also "explicitly stating this spirit of F would too draconian or scary and people who would support the more narrow wording wouldn't support that." The logical combination of these two arguments is "I think there are people who would support a narrowly-worded version of F focused solely on this precise sentence, which they will not realize effectively prohibits any discussion of this in any formulation." I don't think this is intentional, but this is the sort of thing that slips in when people have their own clear idea of how things should end up and what each option really means, and it's why it's better for RFC entries to be precise. The RFC's options should encompass the whole of what you intend the RFC to accomplish, or you end up with problems like this.

As an example... You say that you want to add it to B, C, and D, say, but - how would you add it to them? All the others genuinely just touch on how we word one sentence; I don't think they have a "spirit" that anyone would try to argue extends beyond that. The only thing they really prohibit is removing the mention of Zionists using the term colonialism entirely, which is self-evidently a result of retaining a sentence; none of them are intended as a repudiation of anything except that. I wouldn't interpret B as eg. prohibiting us from using the term ""settler-colonial" elsewhere.

Of course, there is another option, if you want to split the difference - we could have both F, Remove this sentence entirely, with the option to cover the topic of Zionists characterizing their movement as colonization in a different manner elsewhere in the paragraph or article or even just Remove this sentence entirely, with no implications for anything else in the paragraph or article, in addition to G. Remove this sentence entirely, along with other discussion of Zionists characterizing their movement as colonization and do not re-introduce this content anywhere else in the Zionism article using different wording. This would require that people order their preferences and that the closer make the obvious combinations to reach consensus (eg. if G, the more dramatic option, fails, then anyone supporting it could probably be lumped into F if that brings F to a consensus, unless they specifically indicated otherwise) but closers do that all the time. You could also propose a less scary-sounding wording for G if you want, but the point is that if what you want is to completely remove any reference to Zionists referring to their movement as colonial from the article, then the option for that needs to be explicit about it, and not rely on it being in the "spirit" of a proposal that just talks about a single sentence. --Aquillion (talk) 20:40, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

"which they will not realize effectively prohibits any discussion of this in any formulation"... It doesn't? I don't understand where this belief, that removing the sentence prohibits it or anything like it from every being added at all ever, comes from. Please can we move past this illusion. It just means that it is better removed from there, and for now. No one wants to "ban" it, and therefore there is no reason to scare people into thinking this option (and this option alone) is one that can never be undone. Can we knock it off please? Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 20:56, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Break 2

Updated per the above discussion between @Vice regent and @NorthernWinds:

• A. "Various proponents of Zionism have characterized it as colonial or settler-colonial" (status quo)
• B. "Various proponents of Zionism have characterized it as colonial"
• C "Early Zionists described their activities in Palestine in ways that now correspond to academic descriptions of colonialism or settler colonialism."
• D. "Until the mid-20th century, Zionists used terminology related to 'colonization' when referring to immigration and settlement efforts in Palestine"
• E. Some other way of wording this (please specify your exact wording).
• F. Remove this sentence entirely, along with other discussion of Zionists characterizing their movement as colonization and do not re-introduce this content anywhere else in the Zionism article using different wording.

TarnishedPath^talk 00:09, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

F should be simply "remove this sentence entirely", as has been made very clear by now. We also now have another option: According to Joseph Massad, various proponents of Zionism have characterized it as colonial. This would make most sense just below B, as it is very similar wording. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 00:23, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

See above for why a simpler F would be fine. This version conflates colonialism with colonization so is misleading. Apart from that I’m fine with this. We don’t need to add a new Massad option at this point. BobFromBrockley (talk) 02:34, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

But I prefer this cumbersome version of F over having no F at all if nobody else sees the problem. BobFromBrockley (talk) 03:09, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

I also see the problem. I'm not sure anyone who is supporting/contemplating support for F has argued for the "extra" provisions beyond "Remove this sentence". Samuelshraga (talk) 05:55, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

It should be patently clear that I am very much in favor of the extra clarity attached to option F.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 06:19, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes, but haven't you made it clear that you oppose option F? What I said was that no one who has said they are contemplating support for the option wants these extra provisions to be part of it. Samuelshraga (talk) 06:22, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Its not my first choice (and I don't think its anyone else's first choice either). But I would vastly prefer "Remove this sentence entirely and do not re-introduce this content anywhere else in the Zionism article using different wording" over "Remove this sentence entirely, but the content may be re-introduced using different wording".VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 06:28, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

There's no reason why someone who supports Remove this sentence should also necessarily support along with other discussion of Zionists characterizing their movement as colonization. If someone wants to do the extra removal, they can do that after, or argue for an extra option to reflect that preference now.

There's already a consensus-required restriction on the page - if someone re-adds the material, re-worded or not, then they'll need to get consensus for the change anyway. This makes the second additional provision of F do not re-introduce this content anywhere else in the Zionism article using different wording redundant. Samuelshraga (talk) 06:49, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Bob here on Wh1's version of F. I think that the quotes (especially those of Borochov, Granot & Katznelson) stand for themselves. NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 06:42, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath, Bob and I have agreed that an acceptable version of F would be:

F. Remove this sentence entirely: "Various proponents of Zionism have characterized..." while keeping the next two sentences as is, as seen in the current version of the article". If that works for everyone, I think we can get the RFC finally started.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 13:23, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

If specifying that this option doesn't involve change to the following sentences is what it takes, I'm fine with that. Samuelshraga (talk) 15:32, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

@Aquillion, @User:Bluethricecreamman, Bluethricecreamman, @Cdjp1, @Dw31415, @Fiveby, @Guz13, @Katzrockso, @Kowal2701, @M.Bitton, @MarkBernstein, @NorthernWinds, @Samuelshraga, @ScottishFinnishRadish, @Simonm223, @Smallangryplanet, @SuperPianoMan9167, @VidanaliK, @Wh1pla5h99 and @Vice regent, @Darouet and @Bobfrombrockley have proposed removal of E or F above. Any views on that, with the understanding that even if removed it is an option that anyone could express during discussion, along with "none of the above" or anything for that matter? TarnishedPath^talk 02:58, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks TP. I’ve expressed my views on F just above the break 2 line (we need it but it should be simplified). Am agnostic on E (I don’t see any problem with it but I don’t mind it going). BobFromBrockley (talk) 03:12, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

From my point of view, E is an implicit option in any RFC; however, given the last RFC it appears we need to broadly accomodating or people won't be happy. TarnishedPath^talk 04:02, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Ps, I also think having the number of options that we do is going to make it more likely that there is a no consensus outcome. In that circumstance the status quo generally prevails, at least in non-BLPs. I hope editors are cognisant of that. TarnishedPath^talk 04:05, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

While I would disagree with F, I see no particular problem with having it listed as an option, as we have seen multiple people express the sentiment. For E, if we didn't present it, people may be more inclined to pick from the listed options, while those who have a strong enough conviction for something else, as you point out, will likely still express such in their comment (and we have seen such expression in different formal discussions on this talkpage). But beyond that thought, I have no real opinion to it's inclusion/exclusion. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 07:42, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

I think I’m persuaded by other editors that E isn’t necessary. Editors that want something else will say so anyway, and it’s one fewer option and slightly higher likelihood of consensus if we don’t include it. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:00, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't think a person could reasonably derive F from the sources that exist. Simonm223 (talk) 10:18, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

I don’t know how anybody can reasonably derive A from the sources, but obviously there are editors who have argued for this option in the RFCbefore and the workshop, and the same goes for F, so we need to keep them both on the list and then other editors can make their arguments against them in the actual RFC BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:58, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Avineri, "Zionism as a National Movement" (1979) is certainly a source, and endorses F. MarkBernstein (talk) 13:40, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Just keep e and f. Who cares? User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 12:29, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Note: I've changed option D to be a merged version of both my suggestions NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 07:15, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't think the wording is the best, but then I don't particularly care. TarnishedPath^talk 07:20, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

I agree it could be worded better, eg “Early Zionists saw their project as one of colonization”, but I can live with this version if that’s what most other D advocates want. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:01, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

• Is there a reason why we use Various... in several of these, and not the more straightforward and common Some...? Either wording also seems to beg the question of which, which suggests an alternative formulation of Some early proponents of Zionism characterized it as colonial or settler-colonial - I have not read every single part of the discussion, but I think it's fair to say few proponents characterize it as colonial today, and the very next sentence basically supports the idea that the term was used early on and then some people were like "hey stop this, it's a bad look" or whatever. This captures the gist of the key points people object to (not all Zionists hold that position; none, or vanishingly few, hold the position today) while capturing the key point that it was once a significant position. And it has slightly less awkward wording than some of the other suggestions, which does matter. This would also assume that we continue to detail which in more detail in the rest of the paragraph; this sort of language is appropriate in the lead-in to a paragraph as a summary, but only if it actually serves as a summary. --Aquillion (talk) 20:03, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

  Did you see this quote? M.Bitton (talk) 20:22, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Well, Various... doesn't really reflect that either. If you think the sourcing supports universal usage, then Early proponents of Zionism characterized it as colonial or settler-colonial (and similarly Early proponents of Zionism characterized it as colonial) would be the obvious choices. (That quote clearly also supports "early" given the timeframe it specifies; I do think we really should have "early" in all versions, unless someone wants to argue that there's sources supporting the idea that it has meaningful usage today.) Do those seem like good options to you? Honestly I prefer the last one I mentioned, which is clean and straightforward; but I haven't been following every single source people discussed. --Aquillion (talk) 20:46, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

+1 to replacing option B with Early proponents of Zionism characterized it as colonial.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 20:52, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

+1 BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:03, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

This is very a sensible intervention Aquillion BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:07, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Break 3

Updated per the above discussions:

• A. "Various proponents of Zionism have characterized it as colonial or settler-colonial" (status quo)
• B. "Early proponents of Zionism characterized it as colonial"
• C "Early Zionists described their activities in Palestine in ways that now correspond to academic descriptions of colonialism or settler colonialism."
• D. "Until the mid-20th century, Zionists used terminology related to 'colonization' when referring to immigration and settlement efforts in Palestine"
• E. Some other way of wording this (please specify your exact wording).
• F. Remove this sentence entirely: "Various proponents of Zionism have characterized..." while keeping the next two sentences as is, as seen in the current version of the article

Is there anything else? TarnishedPath^talk 21:33, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

@Aquillion, @User:Bluethricecreamman, Bluethricecreamman, @Cdjp1, @Dw31415, @Fiveby, @Guz13, @Katzrockso, @Kowal2701, @M.Bitton, @MarkBernstein, @NorthernWinds, @Samuelshraga, @ScottishFinnishRadish, @Simonm223, @Smallangryplanet, @SuperPianoMan9167, @VidanaliK, @Wh1pla5h99, @Vice regent, @Darouet and @Bobfrombrockley.

How does the above look? Are we good to go? TarnishedPath^talk 21:58, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

I think this has been more than sufficiently workshopped now (perhaps the most workshopped RfC on Wikipedia). Katzrockso (talk) 22:05, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Prefer just "remove this sentence entirely" for F, as I believe do most others. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 22:06, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Also I believe the consensus was A should also swap "Various" for "Early" Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 22:09, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

A is the status quo, we'd probably need a different option if we wanted "Early proponents of Zionism have characterized it as colonial or settler-colonial" as an option. TarnishedPath^talk 22:20, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Ah never mind Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 22:22, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes, that looks good to me. M.Bitton (talk) 22:43, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes, looks good to me too! The current version of option F has the agreement of 3 different users: me, Bob and Samuelshraga. Please post the RfC.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 00:56, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

It's posted. See below. TarnishedPath^talk 01:27, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you,TarnishedPath, for driving this forward diligently.

In principle, I support Samuelshraga’s plea for us to name our sources while !voting, although it may not be super practical. Can I ask if content in that section would count towards our 1000 word limits? BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:59, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

@Bobfrombrockley, Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict#Word limits (1,000 words) states" All participants in formal discussions (RfCs, RMs, etc) within the area of conflict are urged to keep their comments concise, and are limited to 1,000 words per discussion. Citations and quotations (whether from sources, Wikipedia articles, Wikipedia discussions, or elsewhere) do not count toward the word limit. This motion will sunset two years from the date of its passage". The expiration date is 23 January 2027. TarnishedPath^talk 10:09, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

List of quotes (colonialism rfc)

The list (as of closure) is present in this diff

Massad quote

The Zionist movement was and presented its project of creating a Jewish State through colonization as part of the European colonizing world, while “socialist” variants of it were presenting the Zionist project as one assisting in combating imperialism and the world capitalist order. Later, the Zionist establishment itself which had initially presented its project as colonial was presenting itself as a movement of national liberation constituting its project as anticolonial in nature, albeit one established through colonization but not colonialism...

Then some pages later (I don't have exact page numbers):

Laharanne’s work also influenced one of the earliest Jewish Zionists, Moses Hess, who used Laharanne’s book extensively while writing his Rome and Jerusalem in 1862. The collusion with European imperialism was so central to the Zionist project that Hess notes in his book to those unpersuaded in the practicality of Zionist aims: “Do you still doubt that France will help the Jews to found colonies which may extend from Suez to Jerusalem and from the banks of the Jordan to the coast of the Mediterranean?”

Then,

As the above references to Jews-as-colonists indicate, European Jews and gentiles alike viewed European Jews as “Europeans” (only) insofar as they were/are undertaking a colonial venture...Even self-styled socialist Zionists like Ber Borochov, who had to deal with the presence of the Palestinian people, advocated solidarity with them while stressing the practical tasks of Jewish colonization which were being carried out at the Palestinians’ expense.

Then,

In the 1930s, some Zionists were beginning to suggest a change in the ideological vocabulary of their colonial-settler project. F.H. Kisch, the chairman of the Zionist Executive, noted in his diary in 1931 that he was "striving to eliminate the word “colonization” in this connection [Jewish agricultural settlement in Palestine] from our phraseology. The word is not appropriate from our point of view since one does not set up colonies in a homeland but abroad: e.g. German colonies on the Volga or Jewish colonies in the Argentine, while from the point of view of Arab opinion the verb to “colonize” is associated with imperialism and aggressiveness." This was not only an expression of political shrewdness but also a reflection of the real ambivalence characteristic of Zionist thinking in relation to Palestine. On the one hand, Zionists claimed Jews were a Semitic people who originated in Palestine, while on the other hand, they viewed Jews as modern Europeans participating in colonial endeavors. This trend was consolidated after the Zionists could no longer rely fully on British support. This transformation in Zionist–British relations was a result of the 1939 British-issued White Paper restricting Jewish immigration to Palestine, which was in response to the anti-colonial Palestinian Revolt of 1936–1939. Many of the British armed Zionists whose weapons until then were used against Palestinian resistance to Jewish colonization, now were turning their weapons also against their British sponsors.

Discussion on the quotes

@VidanaliK: I went over the nightmare that is Lewinsky and Lilienblum but do you mind checking them yourself and verifying translation as well? I'm also afraid that the latter is irrelevant, so it'd be nice if you assessed that too and considered trimming my quotes in general. Also if you can, verify all the other Hebrew quotes I've added (I just added about 8 quotes in total ) Thanks! NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 23:01, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

@NorthernWinds I don't see any of the original Hebrew next to English in those diffs. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 01:02, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

@VidanaliK They were added in later diffs and are inside the citations NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 08:02, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm done adding for now :) hopefully people find the quotes useful. Tell me if you want me to search my database further. I have more scans of texts by Nordau, Trumpeldor, Brandeis, Dizengoff, Hess (soon getting a book of essays related to Zionism but independent of Rome & Jerusalem), Syrkin, Tabenkin, Weitz (diaries) and Alkalai & Kalischer (which I will probably need help with) as well as all the others whose quotes I've added. Most of my scans are not availible on the internet! NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 10:15, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure where to put this, but given the discussion over what Joseph Massad says, here are the relevant parts:

Massad quotes have been moved to below the other list above

VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 07:44, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A way forwards? Zionism, colonialism, and the purpose of Wikipedia

Are we perhaps reaching a realization that, at least before any RfC should take place (and perhaps negating any need for one), we should carefully and collaboratively edit this paragraph in accordance with the sources it is based on (mostly Massad, partly Khalidi)? The issue would seem to be resolved by proper attribution being given to Massad from the jump; a nice way to do this might be to quote or paraphrase him as saying "Since its prehistory, Zionism, in both its Jewish and gentile versions, was incorporated within colonial thought". The quotes from VR below should help a great deal; I also have access to the text in full.

Explaining the relationship of Zionists themselves with words like "colonization" would take more than just one sentence, if this debacle has proved anything, and perhaps such discussion could be split off into a separate section on this page. A lot of the confusion seems to stem from anachronistic use of the word "colonialism", which only took on its present meaning of domination and subjugation later in the 20th century, so it makes little sense to trawl through Zionist writing to find it, or to retroject Massad's characterization of Zionism onto their characterization of themselves.

It seems like cooler heads may be prevailing at this point, allowing natural consensus on what the paragraph should say to form without the need for what is in any case an inflexible and unideal process. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 09:38, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Having another look, the previous paragraph already says "Joseph Massad argues that Zionism was intrinsically linked to European colonial thought from its inception", so perhaps that gives the all the context necessary. If the paragraph (minus its first sentence) is still felt to need clarification then, as Bob has suggested, we should replace

Joseph Massad wrote that, for political and ideological reasons, starting in the 1930s, some Zionist thinkers proposed that the Zionist movement should avoid using terms related to colonialism

with a more faithful representation of the source. What Massad actually says is "In the 1930s, Zionists were beginning to suggest a change in the ideological vocabulary of their colonial-settler project", and Massad then quotes Kisch's diary note that he was "striving to eliminate the word 'colonization' in this connection [Jewish agricultural settlement in Palestine]". So perhaps we could word the paragraph

Joseph Massad wrote that, for political and ideological reasons, starting in the 1930s, some Zionist thinkers proposed that the Zionist movement should change its ideological vocabulary. He refers to FH. Kisch's stated goal to "eliminate the word 'colonization'" in connection with Jewish settlement in Palestine.

Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 11:35, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

We could then go on to give Massad's explanation for this move: "This was not only an expression of political shrewdness but also a reflection of the real ambivalence characteristic of Zionist thinking in relation to Palestine. On the one hand, Zionists claimed Jews were a Semitic people who originated in Palestine, while on the other hand, they viewed Jews as modern Europeans participating in colonial endeavors." Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 11:36, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

I think I would agree with something like this, and I think if there had been a little less of a battleground attitudein this topic, we could actually really easily have reached a satsifactory solution long ago, perhaps along these lines, simply by reading the sources cited and agreeing paraphrasing. I have no idea how we reached the point that became impossible. Sadly now, I think turning the boat around and arresting another RfC would require getting loads of agreement and isn't plausible. I guess you could argue "Something else" and propose this in the RfC. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:47, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

I disagree with not being able to turn back. I think this proposal at least merits serious consideration from all involved to gauge people's feelings; as I say things seem to have cooled slightly. Not going to ping anyone for now but I do consider this to be the best path to take, unless there is any major disagreement. After all, there are circumstances around the user who demanded the RfC in the first place that may make such a course of action unnecessary. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 14:21, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Why are you so opposed to an RfC? Simonm223 (talk) 14:26, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't really see the logic in casting as wide a net as possible if those most familiar with the topic can reach an agreement themselves. It is only inviting those less familiar and interested in the area to give their (inevitably less informed) opionion. I don't think I'm so opposed to it, but as I say it is less than ideal. Complicated problems require sustained attention and discussion, not votes, except as a last resort. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 14:31, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Not having a RfC for something that has been discussed to death is not a viable option. There is nothing to suggest that others are less informed than those who think they know better (one of the root causes of the issue). The RfC will bring the much needed fresh eyes. M.Bitton (talk) 14:39, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

That would be true if the discussion ended in a stonewall, but I have a sense that we are getting somewhere. We might not have a solution today, but clearly progress is being made, and the dark clouds seem to be receding. Time will tell. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 14:43, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Your sense is not shared by those who are busy workshopping the RfC. M.Bitton (talk) 14:45, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

recalling some advice you gave me once... BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:38, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm struggling to see the connection with what I said above. M.Bitton (talk) 16:14, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

We're twinning! NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 21:04, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

An RfC is for when the typical dispute resolution process has failed. I think after this thread alone has received 357 replies, the typical dispute resolution process is not going to lead to anything. A RfC has become necessary. Katzrockso (talk) 21:35, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

You're probably right. It is just depressing that we are so clearly missing the wood for the trees. Hyper-fixating on one sentence at a time so that we end up with a weird blend of various sentences that don't fit together and an article that reads like a battleground. The simple solution is to just give povs as povs, and then give the opposing pov. But we are obsessed with fighting over one claim and trying to get to the "truth" of it, as if that is our job, rather than to reflect the way in which reliable sources have disagreed in the exact same way that people here disagree. Oh well. So close yet so far. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 21:48, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Agree with Bob. I was tho just starting to write a comment about how we reached the point and the essence and driving factors behind the colonialism content. How the discussion are stuck (and have been for quite awhile) on a categorization of Zionism as colonialism. There needs to be some kind of agreement amongst editors to somehow get beyond that and start actually trying to inform the reader and provide a basis for them to understand that categorization. fiveby(zero) 16:00, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

@Wh1pla5h99 Are we even sure it's due? From a quick search:

1. Prof. Baruch Kimmerling: The Jewish immigrants and settlers in Palestine never regarded themselves as colonists, or their movement as a part of the world colonial system; rather, they saw themselves as a people “returning to their homeland” after two thousand years of forced exile
2. Prof. Deborah Bernstein: The Jews did not perceive themselves as strangers to the land. On the contrary, they saw themselves as returning, not to Palestine but to the Land of Israel— Eretz Yisrael. They saw themselves as reversing their long but "temporary" stay in the European diaspora and reestablishing a Hebrew entity in the land of their fathers. They saw themselves as settlers and colonizers, but of a very different type than that of the European settler movements. The Zionist settlers were themselves aware of the possible similarity between Zionist colonization and that of European settlers elsewhere and therefore they constantly emphasized what they considered to be vital differences: They were not foreigners but settlers returning to the land that had belonged to their forefathers. They did not intend or desire to exploit native labor; on the contrary, the essence of their return was that they themselves should do the work. They did not wish to dominate the local population but to establish their own, separate, national home, and they believed that their colonization would not harm the native population but would benefit it
3. Prof. Jacob Lassner & Prof. Ilan Troen: Zionists adamantly rejected the charge made first during the mandate that they were engaged in yet another instance of European colonialism
4. Prof. Moshe Lissak: First, aliyah/immigration to the country, generally speaking, had particular motivations in comparison with any other settlement movement. Second, the socio-economic and ideological policy, particularly that of the Labor movement, prevented the development of these [colonial] symptoms.

NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 19:16, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

I think this is interesting stuff and a new subsection should probably be dedicated to it; this is what I meant by explaining the relationship of Zionists themselves with words like "colonization" would take more than just one sentence. For the paragraph in question though, it is explaining the pov of scholars like Massad who do see it as colonialism. Of course, for the article to be neutral, all povs (including those of Zionists or Zionist sympathizers) need to be given attention. But these should not be forced together since obviously these views can't all be reconciled with each other. So I would suggest you create another paragraph or subsection about the views of these writers, if you feel inclined.

If you are questioning whether Massad's views should be included at all (by "due" do you mean WP:DUE?), that would be another debate that I don't see the point in having right now. I'm not sure what case you would have, since afaik it seems a fairly popular scholarly take on the topic and therefore merits inclusion even if you think it's "wrong". Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 19:44, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

I did mean WP:DUE. While the application of the settler colonialism to Zionism prevails in academia (because the glove fits the hand and Zionism is obviously settler colonialism), European colonialism (i.e classical colonialism) when applied to Zionism has little to no academic support. I will look up sources for you. Let me make a prediction... I will find an overwhelming amount of scholars objecting to characterizing Zionism as colonialism/colonial and it will be hard to get half as much supporting it. NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 20:10, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

To be honest with you I don't think this is the time or the place. If you wish to do so please start a new section on this page, but having that conversation while simulatenously trying to figure out what we want this paragraph to say is going to be hopeless. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 20:21, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

I am definitely losing my focus here... Anyways I made it and it's here NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 20:42, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

1. If Kimmerling indeed uses the word "never" then he is plainly contradicted by many RS and becomes an extremely tiny opinion. Most historians on the topic agree that at least some Zionists used such terminology.

2. "They saw themselves as settlers and colonizers, but of a very different type than that of the European settler movements." This opinion is a lot more common in scholarship than Kimmerling's opinion, and even Massad writes that Jews distinguished their colonization from European colonization (he says that was in part because colonialism had acquired a negative connotation).

3. Need a fuller quote to know which Zionists and when did they reject the charge of colonialism.

4. This is relevant to "Zionism as colonialism" but not relevant to the discussion of "Zionists seeing Zionism as colonialism".VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 20:20, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

I think Kimmerling meant colonists in the context of the colonial system as we understand it today and not just colonization or just the usage of these terms.

Looking back you are right about number 4, and the full quote for 3 is Zionists adamantly rejected the charge made first during the mandate that they were engagedin yet another instance of European colonialism. In the words of Avraham Granovsky, a leading Zionist settlement official: “Jews come to Palestine to execute not a colonial, but a colonization policy.” First articulated in 1931 in response to Arab accusations brought before a British commission to investigate communal violence in 1929, his analysis is also relevant to the contemporary literature of anti-Zionists and revisionist scholars (it is the beginning of a new section so there was nothing before that)

This opinion is.. common in scholarship if this can be demonstrated it should be included. It is much more informative than just saying Various proponents of Zionism have characterized it as colonial or settler-colonial and/or Joseph Massad wrote that, for political and ideological reasons, starting in the 1930s, some Zionist thinkers proposed that the Zionist movement should avoid using terms related to colonialism and/or Until the mid-20th century, Zionists used terminology related to 'colonization' when referring to immigration and settlement efforts in Palestine NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 07:03, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Wow that Granovsky quote couldn’t address our question more precisely. It strongly supports option D, and undermines option A but also B. Is it in the source list yet? BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:15, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

@Bobfrombrockley I am glad that you found it helpful! Yes, it is (and was prior to this comment) in the list. I also routinely update the list. You may want to check it out again NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 21:04, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

I agree with @NorthernWinds. At present, we repeat Massad’s claims in Wikipedia’s voice; it is just one opinion among many. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:45, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Not really. The article says Joseph Massad wrote that... Where attribution is needed it can easily be added (I rewrote the paragraph above). Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 20:01, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

• "Since its prehistory, Zionism, in both its Jewish and gentile versions, was incorporated within colonial thought" seems pretty awkwardly-worded to me; it also misses the key point that there were a significant number of early Zionists who used the label of colonialism. It's true that fully explaining that relationship would take more than one sentence, but this is just the initial summary sentence of the paragraph - the rest of the paragraph can explain what it means, how it changed and why, and so on. (And in fact part of the problem might be that we're focusing too much on that sentence rather than expanding the details it summarizes in the rest of the paragraph; expanding that might give us a better sense of what the summary ought to say.) But either way, as I said above, I don't think we're avoiding an RFC simply because this dispute extends so far outside of Wikipedia - no matter what language we choose, we're going to have a constant influx of people objecting to it, so if we don't want the wording of one sentence (or its presence or absence) to continue to consume editorial time and energy forever, we're going to want an RFC eventually. It's better to bite the bullet and settle on something decisively, at least for now, so we can move on to other parts of the article. (Though, with WP:RFCBEFORE in mind, we might want to spend more time trying to identify the real crux of the dispute so an RFC can settle that.) --Aquillion (talk) 20:07, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

  That was a quote from Massad (and as I explained in the following comment, it has actually already been kind of paraphrased in the article here so its not needed). Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 20:15, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

  it also misses the key point that there were a significant number of early Zionists who used the label of colonialism — this is at the heart of the dispute because my reading of the many sources presented on this page is that there are almost no instances of early Zionists using that label. They use terms colonise, colony, colonist, colonial, but not the label colonialism BobFromBrockley (talk) 01:21, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

  You're arguing that because Zionists didn't use a specific abstract noun, despite them using nouns and adjectives which convey the same meaning, that it isn't what they meant? TarnishedPath^talk 01:31, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

  If colonial just meant "relating to colonies" you would be correct. But of course it has a whole lot more meaning now; to pretend otherwise is disingenuous. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 01:44, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

  The meaning isn't that different. The major difference between the past and now is how the act and ideology is viewed. TarnishedPath^talk 01:57, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

  Its just straight up misleading to imply that when they spoke of colonization, Zionists were invoking (or even aware of) the concept of "colonialism" as scholars today write about it. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 02:04, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

  They didn't need to be aware of the concept for their acts and ideology to fall within the concept. TarnishedPath^talk 02:30, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

  They need to be aware of the concept to "characterize themselves" as that concept. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 02:43, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

  I disagree, if they speak in language which is in line with the concept and characterise those acts, ideology and characteristics to themselves then they are characterising themselves as engaging in that thing. TarnishedPath^talk 03:49, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

  It's just synth. We should reflect the exact way in which the characterized themselves, not our reading of it, or how it fits into our current framework. Also NPOV; the point is their characterization has to come from them, and not have our pov thrown in there. What's the resistance to just portraying things as accurately as possible, rather than shoving everything into an interpretative frameworks? I consider that to be unencyclopedic; the reader doesn't want to know about our or anyone else's take on what happened, but what happened, as accurately as it can be relayed. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 10:11, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

  Colonialism is an ideology that necessarily involves domination. The other words may or may not involve domination. Merriam Webster's third definition of colony involves no domination, just people living together. So yes, those words are different Slava570 (talk) 02:04, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

  I'm not sure if you've taken notice of what has happened since 1948 if you think that there has been no domination. TarnishedPath^talk 02:32, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

@NorthernWinds has some interesting quotes which are DUE. If the zionists thought they were returning to their own land, then this is different than European colonialism where you are conquering new land. It might not have been a "moral idea" by today's standards, but it is what they were thinking. Guz13 (talk) 20:59, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

It is indeed all over their writings and as an avid propaganda reader I feel obligated to stress this. I believe you meant to include this citation for your statememt:

Prof. Robbie Sabbel: The Jewish immigrants to Palestine were imbued and motivated by the belief that they were returning to their ancestral home, not by a belief that they were discovering and developing a new land. NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 21:12, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

A lot of the confusion seems to stem from anachronistic use of the word "colonialism", which only took on its present meaning of domination and subjugation later in the 20th century, so it makes little sense to trawl through Zionist writing to find it, or to retroject Massad's characterization of Zionism onto their characterization of themselves.

This is incorrect. The meaining of colonial, colonialism, colonialist, etc didn't change. What changed was perceptions of it. The act stayed the same; however, in the aftermath of WW2 it increasingly came to be seen as a wrong. TarnishedPath^talk 21:37, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Some people used the word "colonizing" to mean building farms. In that use, it has nothing to do with displacing people. Is that DUE? I don't know. Guz13 (talk) 21:50, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes, many words have different usages. How does that pertain to the current discussion? TarnishedPath^talk 21:55, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

It's incorrect because you said so? What kind of argument is that? Remember we are also dealing with this word in other languages. Most Zionists were speaking languages other than English, so the equivalent word meant something else in that time period in those languages. Slava570 (talk) 21:57, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Our article on Settler colonialism defines it as "a process by which settlers exercise colonial rule over a land and its indigenous peoples, transforming the land and replacing or assimilating its population with or into the society of the settlers."

Exactly what changed about that practice before and after it coming to be seen as a negative? TarnishedPath^talk 22:02, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

But if the Jews are indegenous to Israel/Palestine then you are saying they colonized themselves. Guz13 (talk) 22:21, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Only if you start with that premise. Obviously anyone who talks about settler colonialisation being a fact isn't starting with that premise. TarnishedPath^talk 22:28, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't know if that's true. It used to just mean "relating to colonies" (OED2 paraphrase), i.e. settlements, but now most dictionaries say something like when "a country controls another country or area" (Camb dict). Such a meaning is not even mentioned in OED2 since it emerged in the 20th century. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 22:01, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Merriam Webster's definitions are: 1. an area over which a foreign nation or state extends or maintains control, 2. a group of people who establish residence in that area and who retain ties with the parent state, and 3. a group of people who settle together in a new place. Many in that time period all over the world were using definition three, as there was no parent state. Slava570 (talk) 22:05, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

I was really struck by this background and the fact that إيان actually first wrote the sentence in a very uncontroversial form Zionism's founders and early leaders described Zionism as colonization, including Theodor Herzl, Max Nordau, and Ze'ev Jabotinsky. but lacking in sources. If we'd added sources and built from this, we could so easily have reached a version acceptable to all editors, but once the words "settler colonial" came along, it became a battleground, even over the use of the word "characterizing" which seems obviously wrong or confusing to almost any reader. If literally two editors had just said "Even though I think the word 'characterizing' is accurate but I see why you guys have an issue with it, so let's look for new wording", we could have avoided all of this effort. Frustrating. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:08, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

If i'm recalling things correctly the fight at the time was over through the colonization of Palestine in the article's first sentence and there were a flood of edit requests opposing that. There may have been some talk page comments along the lines of: "Zionists themselves referred to the project as colonization, so what's the problem?". Now it's become a fight of categorization as colonialism which is a different matter. I liked VR's comment with some better evidence as to why some authors classify or examine through the colonialism framework. fiveby(zero) 15:45, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

I looked through the history again and I think I was a little off on where this line originated. It seems to have first been added to the lead here In January 2024, as "Proponents of Zionism do not necessarily reject the characterization of Zionism as settler-colonial or exceptionalist". It changed over time and, seemingly in response to this talk page discussion in January 2025 it was removed from the lead, then two days later added back to the body of the article. The consensus in the discussion seems to have been complete removal, so I'm not sure why it was added to the body. You noticed this at the time Bob and said I don't object to its presence in the body, but we need to address the sourcing concerns raised here. Needless to say those concerns went unaddressed, and I think you would have been perfectly entitled to remove it at the time. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 10:31, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Page numbers

As I was reading through the article, I noticed a lot of citations are tagged as needing page numbers. I think it would be a good idea to do some sort of coordinated effort to fix all these maintenance tags. Any ideas? SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 22:31, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Some notes, (I can't be involved too much with a drive due to my priorities being elsewhere), the number currently sits at 80. Most of the the items already include quotations from their texts, so if you have access to the book digitally it is easy enough to ctrl+f the quote. For those items where the digital book does not have page numbers, the page parameter can be replaced with the location parameter (loc=) and the chapter/subchapter given instead of specific pages. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 10:31, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

I've started updating some of these, I'm gonna try to hit everything I can find on Wikilibrary and then start on the books. Smallangryplanet (talk) 10:33, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, that's really helpful =) SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 11:02, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Consensus

On the ongoing RFC workshop(s) and the once and future RFCs, I observe that the customary definition of consensus (general agreement among a group of people) is clearly a problem. Consensus is the WikiWay, but it is almost inconceivable, given a dispassionate reading of the current discussion, that any proposed language, or any language to be proposed in the future, will prove to be something that all reasonable editors can accept and support. It seems clear that the Community will be unable to address the matter. ArbCom cannot resolve it either; it could hand out another batch of topic bans in a PI6, of course, but that hasn’t been a solution in the past and I see scant reason to expect it to work in the future.

Last year’s moratorium, it seems clear, did not resolve the situation. In my view, the nimbus of topic forks that surround this page does not help.

Might it be possible to compose a concise description of Zionism which nearly everyone can accept and support, remaining silent on topics for which consensus cannot be achieved? MarkBernstein (talk) 14:29, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Omission also requires consensus and is obviously nonneutral. And a proper RFC given time to close by a competent uninvolved hasnt been done. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 14:33, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

I see no reason, barring arbcom or broader wikipedia community input, why a pillar of community has an exception. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 14:36, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

With which pillar does this proposal conflict?

• It is encyclopedic.
• It is neutral, as it includes those things that all reasonable editors support.
• It is free content.
• It promotes respect and civility, which are continually abraded by the current manner of proceeding.
• It is far more in compliance with "Wikipedia has no firm rules" than a regime of moratoria and !votes for which no consensus can reasonably be anticipated.

I observe that WP:CONSENSUS is policy. There are many aspects of the current language for which consensus is very unlikely to emerge, either now or in the future. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:13, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Part of the issue is a tendency in Wikipedia to prefer to say things in our voice rather than attribute, because an article that constantly says "According to..." or "Some scholars say..." feels less encyclopedic than one which confidently states thigs in Wikivoice. So editors paraphrase reliable, scholarly sources (sometimes badly, sometimes well) in our voice, without recognising the extent to which historical and sociological scholarship trades in non-neutral interpretations as well as verifiable historical fact. If, instead of the bad choice between either remaining silent because we can't reach consensus and a definitive statement in wikivoice that half our editors and readers take exception to, we simply used more careful attribution and showed that different scholars take different positions, we'd not constantly run into these problems. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:45, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm all for attribution, as can be seen from my edits on various articles (thinking of one example being Genocides in history (World War I through World War II)#Nanjing Massacre). The only issue (I don't think it's really a problem), is when attributing to individual scholars and the like, I have found on multiple occasions people will focus on the scholar and seek to remove them as irrelevant due to them not being a someone like a Sagan, Gould, or Dawkins. Whereas, if the point of the scholar's work is just stated it seems to not be challenged in this manner (at least, outside of the present CTOP).

While I know there are many people who don't like the article even existing, looking at Zionism as settler-colonialism, it's at least at a good enough state with regards to attributing the statements, assessments, and criticisms. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 14:08, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

On a contentious topic, they should say side A says X and side B says Y. Then the reader can decide what side makes more sense to them. Guz13 (talk) 20:48, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Last year’s moratorium, it seems clear, did not resolve the situation.

This is entirely incorrect. The moratorium stopped disruption for a year. That was what it was designed to achieve and it succeeded. TarnishedPath^talk 21:28, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

The moratorium moved disruption elsewhere, at a great reputational cost to the project. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:14, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

The external websites, which have an obvious agenda to push, would be critical of our project in any circumstance that we didn't 100% push their preferred version of history. TarnishedPath^talk 23:17, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

As opposed to a neutral version of history which doesn't antagonize any one orange? Guz13 (talk) 23:21, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Whether anyone orange is antagonized by reality is not our concern. TarnishedPath^talk 00:23, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Famous last words. I would imagine that most editors on this site would like to continue this hobby but if it interfere's with world politics then there will be untold consequences. Guz13 (talk) 18:38, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

We will have to take one for the team NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 20:39, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED TarnishedPath^talk 02:17, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

remaining silent on topics for which consensus cannot be achieved would require the vast majority of this article to be excised, including any descriptions of what Zionism was/is/will be. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 14:03, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS remains policy. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:41, 27 April 2026 (UTC)