Talk:Zionism

This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

“Hitler—as odious as he is to us—has given this idea a good name in the world”

• The world has become accustomed to the idea of mass migrations and has almost become fond of them. Hitler—as odious as he is to us—has given this idea a good name in the world.
  • Ze'ev Jabotinsky, quoted in Norman Finkelstein, Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict, 2016, p. xiv.

Finkelstein's source is Tom Segev, One Palestine, Complete, pp. 406-407. In turn, Segev's source is Yosef Gorny, Policy and Imagination [Hebrew], p. 162. In the scan I managed to achieve (it is an offline source, contact me on email for the scan), Gorny displays an excerpt from a Jabotinsky book in its Hebrew translation, available at PBY 17778. The relevant part is:

מ־1923 ואילך, כשעברו לא פחות מ־700,000 יוונים במשך חדשים מועטים למקדוניה, ו־300,000 טורקים עברו לתראקיה ולאנאטוליה, התרגל העולם לרעיון של הגירות המוניות כאלו וכמעט שהחל לחבב אותו. היטלר– יהיה האיש הזה שנוא עלינו כמה שיהיה – הוסיף בזמן האחרון להוציא מוניטין בעולם לרעיון הזה.

The original publication, written in English by Jabotinsky, is The Jewish War Front, 1940, published by George Allen & Unwin LTD, London. The original quote can be found in page 220:

• Since 1923, when within a few months at least 700,000 Greeks were moved to Macedonia, and 350,000 Turks to Thrace and Anatolia, the idea of such migrations has been familiar and almost popular. Herr Hitler, detested as he is, has recently been enhancing its popularity.}}
  • Ze'ev Jabotinsky, The Jewish War Front, 1940, published by George Allen & Unwin LTD, London, p. 220.

Norman, without consulting the original english, suggested that Jabotinsky was fond of the idea. In the same book cited, Jabotinsky wrote this text:

• The transformation of Palestine can be affected to the full without dislodging the Palestinian Arabs... Unless the Arabs choose to go away of their own accord, there is no need for them to emigrate.
• Palestine, astride the Jordan, has room enough for the million of Arabs, room for another million of their eventual progeny, for several million Jews, and for peace; for so much peace that there would then be peace also in Europe.
  • Ze'ev Jabotinsky, The Jewish War Front, 1940, published by George Allen & Unwin LTD, London, p. 212.

See also:

• When we had to speak about that Greek "precedent" we have taken only the example of the Greek Government; how it managed quickly and cheaply to colonise [absorb] the refugees in Macedonia; but never the Turkish example of transferring people against their free will.
  • Ze'ev Jabotinsky, "Sunk without a trace."

And in principle he rejected the compulsory transfer proposed by the Brits in the Peel Commission report as well:

• This babble about "transfer" of the Arabs is even more irresponsible. From a Jewish point of view this is criminal... We must ensure that the Jews reject this ugly and abhorrent thought as soon as possible. We want to be a majority, but not to show the minority the way out.
  • Ze'ev Jabotinsky, Hayarden, August 13, 1937, p. 3; quoted in Itzhak Galnoor, The Partition of Palestine: Decision Crossroads in the Zionist Movement, p. 173.

Galnoor also explicitly stated that Jabotinsky opposed Transfer, though he noted that there are disagreements on it.

I’ve removed Finkelstein’s slop from the article NorthernWinds (talk) 20:15, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Any translation of Hebrew was done with LLM NorthernWinds (talk) 20:19, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that Norman Finkelstein, in 2016, had access to an LLM? Because that is effectively making the extraordinary claim that Norman Finkelstein is a time traveler. Simonm223 (talk) 20:23, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

I meant any kind of interaction I've had with the Hebrew language relied on LLM, of course I am not saying finkelstein had it. He also translated nothing, he simply cited the quote to Segev's book. This specific claim by him was slop because both he and Segev did not consult the original. Given this, can you explain your revert? NorthernWinds (talk) 20:32, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

I contest your description of Finkelstein as "slop" and counter he's a reliable academic writing within his obvious specialty. You don't like him. That's fine. That's not cause to delete him. And, as you are using the slop generator for your translations of Hebrew, I'm going to take your opinion of the translation he used with a grain of salt. Simonm223 (talk) 20:36, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

This was not the cause for deletion, I explained here that his claim is contested and that his quote is also inaccurate. And I don’t "like" or "dislike" scholars in general, Finkelstein included. I have not caught him delibirately fabricating something (same can't be said about Simha Flapan though).

You are not addressing my reasons for removal. You can compare the translation Finkelstein used yourself... I provided both versions as well as where they can be found, both finkelstein's translation and original are in English. Please take a moment to re-read my original explanation. NorthernWinds (talk) 20:42, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

I think I've addressed your concerns, such as they are, just fine. WP:IDONTLIKEIT covers your concerns. Simonm223 (talk) 20:47, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

I think you have consistently misrepresented what I said here. I now notice you said I contest your description of Finkelstein as "slop" while I originally clarified This specific claim by him was slop. Please re-read this thing in its entierty and don't dismiss it as something that it isn't. Bringing a source contesting a claim and providing clear proof that a quotation is inaccurate is more than just saying WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

You reverted me without even correcting the quotation to the original written by Jabotinsky NorthernWinds (talk) 20:53, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

I restored sourced material you removed. You're the one who called a renowned academic slop. Why? Because you didn't like that he relied on another person's translation? Sorry but your edit would be WP:SYNTH under even the most charitable interpretation. And it really does read like you just don't like Finkelstein associating Zionism with the ethnonationalist ethnic cleansing agenda of the Nazis. But he did that and he's due inclusion so... Simonm223 (talk) 20:56, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand me. It's not that I "don't like" finkelstein's translation. Finkelstein's text was translated from english to hebrew then to English. The original and most accurate text is the English original, since it is the original... Are you sure you re-read what I wrote?

Please quote me where I did original research here. I cited a scholar contesting him and I tracked the quote to the original. You also again repeated that I called an academic "slop," while I only referred to this specific quote he used as "slop."

If this reads like I dislike Finkelstein or his conclusion then it is poorly written, but I empheaize again that this is not what I meant. NorthernWinds (talk) 21:05, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Segev's One Palestine, Complete was originally published as Yamei Kalaniot and translated. Are the footnotes misnumbered in your copy? They are in mine, i think we can blame both Segev and Finkelstein here. fiveby(zero) 22:32, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Interesting. I am reading from the English epub, and they are probably not misnumbered there since they did lead me to the source. I think first and foremost Segev's translator should be blamed, then Finkelstein for not tracing it. Fake/inaccurate quotes are very prevalent in the Arab-Israeli conflict, and they are everywhere. I am skeptical of every quote I read and do verify them at times. I've found distortions in books of Historians like Nur Masalha and downright politically-driven fabrications in works of people like Simha Flapan.

Wikipedia should scutinize every source and always trace quotations to the primary source. NorthernWinds (talk) 07:43, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Simonm223, I think you should attempt to assume good faith and read what NorthernWinds has actually said. There is a problem with using original research to trump scholars like Segev and Finkelstein, even if the original research shows clearly that they were sloppy in their rendition of Jabotinsky in this case, but given that the quote is clearly inaccurate there is a strong case for removing it. Finkelstein's scholarly standing on this issue is actually pretty weak. He's a polemicist and controversialist, not a serious academic, and anything we have sourced to only him should be clearly attributed, and his views should not be given the same weight as serious scholars like Penslar or Khalidi. Based on crude word count, his name appears 11 times in this article, which seems excessive. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:12, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

The addition is misleading and WP:UNDUE. First, Jabotinsky was a marginal figure. Second, Jabotinsky was an early and vehement critic of Fascism, and (if I recall correctly) the organizer of the anti-German boycott movement in the 1930s. The current state of the article represents Jabotinsky’s views as typical or characteristic; they were neither. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:46, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't think your explanations address the issue at hand. NorthernWinds (talk) 21:52, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

MarkBernstein's response doesn't address the issue you raised, NorthernWinds, but provides other reasons the quote is UNDUE. I don't think Jabotinsky is fringe, and his relationship with fascism has been much contested, but it's certainly the case that he is not a good exemplar of mainstream Zionism, and it is also obvious that we cannot say he "drew inspiration from" Nazi policies. If that's an accurate rendition of Finkelstein's interpretation, we could consider attributing that interpretation to Finkelstein, but I don't see why Finkelstein's interpretation is due. I think we should delete the paragraph and quote. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:07, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

I know when I'm on the losing end of a discussion. I don't agree with the removal but I'm not going to edit war over it. Thank you for acknowledging my OR concerns at least. Simonm223 (talk) 17:18, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

@Bobfrombrockley I see. Also kind of a sidenote but fun fact: Abba Ahimeir, founder of Brit HaBirionim, self-declared fascist, said that Jabotinsky was the one who "cured" him from fascism.[1] NorthernWinds (talk) 18:42, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

You cited Galnoor for one Jabotinsky quote, so I think its best to have context on what Galnoor actually said in the same book.

Unlike most opponents of partition, Jabotinsky opposed the transfer of Arabs “voluntarily or by force, whether on a large or small scale.” His public statements leave little room for interpretation: “This babble about ‘transfer’ of the Arabs is even more irresponsible. From a Jewish point of view this is criminal....We must ensure that the Jews reject this ugly and abhorrent thought as soon as possible. We want to be a majority, but not to show the minority the way out. There is, however, disagreement about Jabotinsky’s real position on transfer. Teveth presents a number of examples before and after 1937 in which Jabotinsky did not reject the concept of transfer raised by others. Heller suggests a distinction between Jabotinsky’s public opposition and his private support for voluntary transfer, even in 1937. Moreover, he maintains that Jabotinsky also changed his public position when he wrote just before his death in 1940: “We shouldn’t be alarmed by the possibility that 900,000 [Arabs] would leave the country. This writer has already said that there is no need for this exodus; in fact, it would be highly undesirable from many points of view; but if it becomes clear that the Arabs prefer to emigrate, this possibility can be deliberated without any trace of sorrow in our hearts.” These words indicate that Jabotinsky, like most Zionist leaders, aspired to a state of many Jews and few Arabs, to the extent possible. The tone of his words clearly change: if the Arabs prefer to emigrate, they should not be prevented from doing so, although it would be undesirable from many points of view. However, his attitude carries no recommendation whatsoever of a policy of transfer, or even support for the idea that leaders of both sides could come to an agreement about this matter. In terms of practical positions, the change in tone carried no weight, particularly when we compare them to his clear written and oral statements condemning transfer. Moreover, in the same 1940 essay, Jabotinsky repeated that “turning Eretz Israel into a Jewish state can be fully realized without uprooting the Palestinian Arabs.

Nur Masala's Expulsion of the Palestinians also mentions Jabotinsky. Page 29:

Jabotinsky was, inevitably, a proponent of transfer, in a letter to one of his Revisionist colleagues in the United States dated November 1939, he wrote: “There is no choice: the Arabs must make room for the Jews in Eretz Israel, if it was possible to transfer the Baltic peoples, it is also possible to move the Palestinian Arabs," adding that Iraq and Saudi Arabia could absorb them

The source here is this Washington post article

"We should instruct American Jewry to mobilize half a billion dollars in order that Iraq and Saudi Arabia will absorb the Palestinian Arabs. There is no choice: The Arabs must make room for the Jews in Eretz Israel. If it was possible to transfer the Baltic peoples, it is also possible to move the Palestinian Arabs."

Masala also discusses a plan by Zionists to transfer the Palestinians to Iraq. Citing Masala, page 148:

Norman met Jabotinsky on 2 December, and wrote in his diary: He (Jabotinsky) has already read a copy of my memorandum on lraq....He is very much in favor of the idea. He said, however, that it will be very difficult to m ove the Arabs to leave the Land of lsrael. Jabotinsky raised an original idea according to which, if the plan will reach a point at which Iraq would be willing to collaborate and issue an invitation for the Palestinian Arabs to immigrate to it, the World Zionist Organization would be clever if it pronounced itself publicly to be against Arab immigration, then the Arabs will be certain that the plan is not originally Jewish, and that the Jews want them to stay in the country in order to exploit them, so they will be very eager to go to Iraq. There is a very Machiavellian nature to this, but this could be a healthy policy towards suspicious and ignorant Arab public. Jabotinsky said that if his Revisionist New Zionist Organization will issue an announcement at the right moment against Arab transfer from the Land of Israel, this will create a very great impact on the Arabs to the extent of creating the opposite, and they will get out.

Rafael Medoff has an entire book on this 'Iraq plan': Baksheesh Diplomacy: Secret Negotiations between American Jewish Leaders and Arab Officials on the Eve of World War II. From page 117:

Norman dined that evening with the Revisionist Zionist leader Ze'ev Jabotinsky, at London's Hungaria Restaurant. Jabotinsky had "already read the copy of my Iraq paper that I gave to Akzin." He told Norman that "he approved of the whole idea very much." The Revisionist leader offered an "original suggestion," Norman noted in his diary: [I]f the plan ever progressed to the point where Iraq was prepared to cooperate and proclaim an invitation to the Palestine Arabs to emigrate to Iraq, it would be wise to have the Zionist organization openly oppose Arab emigration from Palestine, and then the Arabs would be sure the scheme was not Jewish and that the Jews wanted them to stay in Palestine only to exploit them, and then they would want very much to go away to Iraq. Although the idea "sounds very Macchiavellian," Norman commented, "it may be very sound politics in dealing with such an ignorant and suspicious people as the Arabs." Jabotinsky offered to have his Revisionist Zionist movement, "at the right moment," speak out "vigorously against a transfer of the Arabs out of Palestine, [which] would have a most convincing effect on the Arabs to do the contrary and go away."

Now, it would be remiss for me not to include Medoff's footnote explaining this:

Yet while rejecting the Zionist Left's belief that political concessions or economic progress would mollify the Arabs, Jabotinsky never went so far as to suggest that the Arabs should be compelled to leave Palestine. Indeed, he denounced the Peel Commission's 1937 proposal to forcibly* transfer 225,000 Arabs out of Jewish Palestine as immoral, and warned that it could inspire anti-Semites to expel Diaspora Jewish communities ("Lost Without Trace," Palestine Flames, September 1937, 1). If some Palestinian Arabs chose of their own volition to emigrate, it would not be "a tragedy or a disaster" and perhaps the Zionist movement should offer to assist them, Jabotinsky wrote—but that was a far cry from advocating expulsion. His remark, above, about "moving" Palestinian Arabs to the surrounding Arab states should be understood in this sense. Indeed, the subsequent reference to civic equality for those Palestinian Arabs "who remain" makes clear that forced relocation of the Palestinian Arab community was not Jabotinsky's goal. His vision of a Jewish state invariably included an Arab minority, and his proposals regarding their status were, if anything, more generous than those of Zionists to his left.

I think we should include that quote mentioning Hitler. It would be wrong to say that Jabotinsky was 100% against emigration. He was for it, and wanted the Zionist movement to fund. At most we could say he was against forced violent transfer. According to Shavit's Jabotinsky and the Revisionist Movement 1925-1948

True to his basic view, J abotinsky continued to insist that it would be possible to realize the Jewish majority in Eretz Israel without harming or dispossessing the Arabs, since the historical Eretz Israel was large enough to accommodate one and a half million Arabs and five million Central and Eastern European Jews. Modem colonization methods would enable the creation of a plentiful existence for the two populations, and so there was no objective reason for the Arabs to leave Eretz Israel, unless forced to emigrate against their own will. Forced emigration, he wrote, 'is an immoral solution, quite apart from the serious doubts as to its practicability. We will not, of course, object to voluntary emigration, and should even facilitate it by extending financial and other assistance.' J abotinsky never suggested, however, that Arab emigration from Eretz Israel should in any way be encouraged or stimulated, let alone enforced

There is more than enough evidence here too add enough context to that quote mentioning Hitler. I am in favor of keeping it but also adding the conclusions from different scholars on the nuances of his view. If you hate Finkelstein that much, just cite Segev in the footnote instead. Drsmartypants(Smarty M.D) (talk) 20:53, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Looking back at this comment, I think it would be better to say that Jabotinsky was against the transfer idea in the Peel commission, but was for it in the Iraqi plan. Shavit I think is unaware of the Iraq plan. In short, I think more context is needed to describe his view. Drsmartypants(Smarty M.D) (talk) 21:07, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

@Drsmartypants(Smarty M.D) The scope of my comment was Finkelstein. I think there is no doubt that Fineksltein has done poor research here. I think you misunderstood some of what I said, but I have clarified those misunderstandings elsewhere in the discussion so I'd appreciate it if you could read it in its entirety.

Also you brought the full Galnoor quote as if I did not mention that he said there are disagreeements (I did say so)

I do agree with you that more context is needed, and that Jabotinsky's view should be added (though some disagree, saying he is fringe). This doesn't remove from the fact that the current statement in the article should be removed and higher quality sources should be added (perhaps, even the sources you presented). NorthernWinds (talk) 21:13, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Finkelstein is not the sole source of the Hitler-Jabotinsky quote. He cites Tom Segev's One Palestine, Complete (pp. 406–407) and Yosef Gorny's Zionism and the Arabs 1882–1948: A Study of Ideology (pp. 270–271) for additional support for his argument.

Segev does indeed contain the quote. His source is not Gorny's Policy and Imagination (that is the following footnote) but rather Sharett, Political Diary, vol. IV, p. 376, which is in Hebrew and I was unable to locate. However, other sources that cite and reference the passage, as well as the available English translations and a Google translation of the Hebrew primary source, corroborate the accuracy of its use by Segev, Finkelstein, and others who have cited it, contrary to NorthernWinds' claim, which rests on selective quotation.

NorthernWinds' additional claim that Jabotinsky opposed transfer and expulsion, and that the quote and Finkelstein's statement therefore constitute "slop", is equally inaccurate, as multiple reliable sources corroborate and confirm that Jabotinsky was influenced by not only Hitler and Nazi demographic policies, but also the Armenian genocide and the policies of Mussolini and Stalin.

Before proceeding to cite the sources demonstrating this, I would request that NorthernWinds email me a copy of the scan of Gorny's Policy and Imagination, as it is unclear why it would contain this information given that it is not cited for it in Segev.

Turning first to the Jabotinsky quote and the question of Hitler's influence, Lenni Brenner also cites the passage in his article Zionist-Revisionism: The Years of Fascism and Terror, p. 89. Brenner's version varies somewhat, as he too is citing the same English edition referenced by NorthernWinds, but unlike NorthernWinds he does not selectively truncate it so as to argue that Finkelstein and Segev fabricated the quote. Rather, he cites the relevant portions of the full passage, which demonstrates that its meaning is precisely the same as in the Segev translation and Finkelstein's use of it:

... whether the Arabs would find all this a sufficient inducement to remain in a Jewish country is another question. Even if they did not, the author would refuse to see a tragedy or a disaster in their willingness to emigrate. The Palestine Royal Commission did not shrink from the suggestion. Courage is infectious. Since we have this moral authority for calmly envisioning the exodus of 350,000 Arabs ... we need not regard the possible departure of 900,000 with dismay ... it would be undesirable from many points of view; but ... the prospect can be discussed without any pretence of concern. ... Herr Hitler, detested as he is, has recently been enhancing its [population transfer] popularity.... his critics ... disapprove of ... removing Germans from the Trentino and the Balticum and planting them in fields and houses robbed from the Poles: but it is the robbing of the Poles, not the moving of the Germans, which really elicits the censure. One cannot help feeling that if only Germans ... Italians and Balts ... were concerned, the operation might in the end prove not so bad ... the idea of redistributing minorities en masse is becoming popular among "the best people."

An English version of Jabotinsky's The Jewish War Front is available online and, although it varies slightly in language (pp. 192–193 of the file), its meaning aligns precisely with Brenner's citation from the same edition cited by NorthernWinds, as well as with Segev and Finkelstein.

Consulting NorthernWinds' link to the Hebrew version, a Google translation yields a rendering that similarly corroborates their translation and use of it:

From 1923 onwards, when no less than 700,000 Greeks moved to Macedonia in a few months, and 300,000 Turks moved to Thrace and Anatolia, the world became accustomed to the idea of such mass migrations and almost began to like it. Hitler, however much we may hate this man, has recently continued to give this idea a worldwide reputation. It is true that his critics vehemently deny his policy and condemn him for having transferred the Germans from Trentino and the Baltic countries and settled them in fields and houses taken from the Poles; but it is not the transfer of the Germans that arouses objection, but the stupidity of the Poles. One cannot help but get the impression that if this transfer of populations had concerned only the Germans on the one hand and the Italians and inhabitants of the Baltic countries on the other, the results of the operation would not have been bad at all, and the peace of the parties concerned would not have been harmed.

Rubin (2019), Vladimir Jabotinsky and Population Transfers between Eastern Europe and Palestine, also references the passage on pages 15–16 as part of the broader argument that Jabotinsky came to support transfer:

The very title he chose for the chapter in which he discussed this scheme, 'The Arab-angle – undramatized', reflected the aloofness with which Jabotinsky now approached the moral question regarding Arab transfer. Reversing his repeated interwar criticisms of population transfers, Jabotinsky now portrayed this method as a just political solution. The 1937 Royal Commission's proposal for the transfer of Arabs from Palestine was no longer 'dangerous chatter', as he originally claimed, but a 'courageous' and morally 'contagious' proposal. Even 'Herr Hitler, detested as he is', Jabotinsky argued in the chapter, was at fault not for transferring the Germans from the Baltic states but only for dispossessing the Poles in the process. (p. 15)

Finkelstein's other cited source, Gorny's Zionism and the Arabs, further corroborates this use:

[Jabotinsky] conceded that mass population exchange, as in the case of Turkey and Greece after the First World War, would be hard to implement and perhaps even impossible, but did not consider such exchange a historical injustice...Jewish immigration would have a detrimental effect on the status of the Arabs as a people, he said, but wide expanses of territory were open to them whereas the Jews had nowhere but Palestine as a home, as the Evian Conference had demonstrated. Hence, population exchange was a necessary evil. In the international sphere, Jabotinsky cited the agreement of the two dictators, Hitler and Mussolini, to transfer some quarter of a million German nationals from South Tyrol, which was under Italian sovereignty. This arrangement had arrested his attention because it entailed, not population exchange, but unilateral transfer. Because of the special situation in Palestine and the prospect that most Jewish immigrants would come from Europe and not from the Arab countries, the principle of transfer seemed more feasible to him. The Hitler-Mussolini agreement appeared to constitute a precedent, namely population transfer as a result of accord between two friendly nations, and to hold out the prospect of a change in the attitude to the status of national minorities. (pp. 270–271)

In each of these sources, Jabotinsky is not merely observing Hitler's influence in rendering transfer more widely acceptable. He is actively defending the principle of the transfers Hitler carried out and drawing an explicit analogy with the situation of Arabs in Palestine, faulting only the dispossession (or "stupidity") of the Poles, rather than the transfers themselves.

In sum, Segev, Brenner, Rubin, Finkelstein, and Gorny all cite the same Jabotinsky-Hitler passage and/or advance the argument that Jabotinsky drew on Hitler's policies in coming to support the transfer of Arabs from Palestine. The available translations from the Hebrew and the English editions corroborate the accuracy of this.

Turning to NorthernWinds' claim that Jabotinsky did not support transfer, and that Finkelstein and Segev must therefore have simply invented this, that too is without foundation. It is further refuted by Rubin, who cites a private 1939 note from Jabotinsky's archives in which he explicitly endorsed transfer and expulsion: 'If Balts may be moved', Jabotinsky argued, referring to a population exchange agreement between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union for the resettlement of Baltic Germans in occupied Poland, then 'Palestinian Arabs certainly' could be relocated too. (p. 2)

Khalidi likewise cites Jabotinsky in direct support of transfer, invoking the Baltic example as justification: There is no choice: the Arabs must make room for the Jews in Eretz Israel. If it was possible to transfer the Baltic peoples, it is also possible to move the Palestinian Arabs. (The Iron Cage, p. 187)

Jabotinsky was thus using a Nazi-Soviet ethnic engineering operation as his explicit model and moral justification for Arab transfer from Palestine, a fact that renders the broader context of the Hitler passage considerably more significant. He was not engaging in abstract philosophical reflection on population transfers. He was actively drawing on live, ongoing Nazi demographic policy as a template.

Further, from Rubin:

Given Jabotinsky's staunch commitment to minority rights in Europe and Palestine, how are we to explain his 1939 and, as we shall see, subsequent calls for the expulsion of Arabs from Palestine? As this article will demonstrate, shortly after the outbreak of war Jabotinsky abandoned his lifelong commitment to the principle of minority rights...Jabotinsky's shift from support for minority rights to an endorsement of population transfers was also shaped by his conviction that the era of minority rights in Europe had come to an end. (p. 4)

Benny Morris confirms the same: Zionist historians, meanwhile, had charged that I had accorded the subject too much significance and that the pre-1948 Zionist leadership had never supported transfer. The newly available material shows that the Israeli critics were wrong: the Zionist leadership in the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s, from David Ben-Gurion, Israel's founding prime minister, through Chaim Weizmann, the liberal president of the World Zionist Organisation, and Menahem Ussishkin and Zeev Jabotinsky, had supported the idea.

As does Madeleine Tress, Fascist Components in the Political Thought of Vladimir Jabotinsky, pp. 318–319: [Jabotinsky] was not, however, against population transfer. In a similar vein, he wrote about the transfer of Armenians and Greeks in Turkey after World War I, and Schechtman reports that Jabotinsky was impressed by the Hitler-Mussolini pact to transfer Germans in the Italian Southern Tirol back to Germany.

The Finkelstein content is accurate and accords with other RS on the subject, the prevalence of which confirms it is due for inclusion. However, the content can be improved by citing the additional sources that back it and include the additions they make to it, noting that he was also influenced by the Armenian genocide and the policies of Stalin and Mussolini. The preceding section minimizing the shift in Jabotinsky's position to openly endorsing transfer ought to be updated to accurately reflect RS. Lf8u2 (talk) 21:44, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Finkelstein in his citation says Segev, One Palestine, pp. 406–7 (Jabotinsky) (cf. also Gorny, Zionism, pp. 270–1). Cf. does not mean what you think it does.

Segev's citation says Mendelsohn memorandum (undated), CZA S25/10060.; Yosef Gorny, Policy and Imagination (in Hebrew) (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 1993), p. 162.

Segev did not cite Sharett, and if he did, then his citation is false. and I was unable to locate Luckily, I am an expert at preventing interlibrary loans ദ്ദി(｡•̀ ,<). Anyways, a site search confirms that this is not in his diaries, or anything else he's ever written.

NorthernWinds' additional claim that Jabotinsky opposed transfer and expulsion not my claim, Galnoor's claim.

and Finkelstein's statement therefore constitute "slop" not my argument, as clarified elsewhere here

I am more than willing to send the scan with love but you have not emailed me so I do not know your address. Please email me so we can proceed (either email me or share your address in another way).

This online version of The Jewish War Front seems like a draft, the regular book is availible if you're willing to sin a little.

I admit, I have not fully read what followed in your comment, it seemed like it wasn't addressing what I brought up. You misunderstood my original post and a look at the rest of the discussion will do. People need to read discussions before commenting... NorthernWinds (talk) 22:38, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Segev's citation of Mendelsohn memorandum (undated), CZA S25/10060 of course referred to a different statement, not the quote. NorthernWinds (talk) 22:40, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Having looked at Finkelstein, Segev, and The Jewish War Front i'm going to remove the passage unless there are further objections. There is no way Finkelstein can be considered a best source for this article, and our authors have made a few errors in giving us this bit of text. fiveby(zero) 23:19, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

I know I'm outnumbered by people who would like Finkelstein removed from articles about Zionism in this discussion but I find the justification for removal grossly insufficient. An editor prefers llm sludge translations over the one Finkelstein used because it protects the reputation of an early zionist. That's what is going on here. Simonm223 (talk) 12:58, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Please refrains from WP:CASTING NorthernWinds (talk) 13:39, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Also you fundamentally misunderstand me. There is no use in providing further clarification from me (I would just be repeating myself) but maybe someone else can explain it better. NorthernWinds (talk) 13:42, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, it is "slop" from Finkelstein and IDONTLIKEIT, but there are two reasons for removing the passage:

• There was a prior agreement to use WP:BESTSOURCES for this article, and a great deal of effort and discussion went into that. I think maybe Zero below is one of the few survivors of those that came to that agreement and the rest are now banned. I for one think that was a good effort and should be acknowledged and respected and editors should try and stick to that agreement. Finkelstein doesn't make the cut. But really irrelevant, we could just cite Segev for the same content, or at least a slightly less embellished version.
• Peter Novick tells us about Holocaust Industry no quotation in his book should be assumed to be accurate, without taking the time to carefully compare his claims with the sources he cites and that's what was done here. There's translation errors and poor scholarship, LLM's have nothing to do with it and i think your continued assertions that that is the case shows you're not really following. We can go thru the issues again, you can read the sources themselves to see the issues, or you can take the word of those who have done that.

I think you need to put forth a better argument for keeping the passage if you still want it in the article. fiveby(zero) 17:29, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

What does it mean that we must use the best sources? If it can be demonstrated that some sources fabricated some things, would it disqualify their work from being cited? NorthernWinds (talk) 19:50, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Started a discussion for those interesting NorthernWinds (talk) 08:51, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Strongly agree with fiveby(zero). Simonm223 you are misrepresenting the arguments you're contesting, and you're inferring motivations without any basis. Finkelstein is very obviously not a best source, and I'm pretty sure there are plenty of secondary sources confirming that. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:17, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Congratulations on identifying the source of the quotation. It is clear that in The Jewish War Front Jabotinsky looked favorable on the possibility of Arabs leaving Palestine but did not propose forcing them to leave. Because the one-sentence quotation does not convey that difference reliability, I support its removal. One more thing has to be noted, though, which is important in understanding Jabotinsky's position: when he wrote that "Palestine" had room for both Arabs and Jews, "Palestine" to him included Transjordan, which was only sparsely populated at the time. Zero^talk 10:50, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Oh, i'd disagree with you there: Since we have this great moral authority for calmly envisaging the exodus of 350,000 Arabs from one corner of Palestine, we need not regard the possible departure of 900,000 with dismay. That's a quote which informs me somewhat about Jabotinsky's thinking (or lack thereof). He may not have directly 'proposed' such, but there's no way to move even 350,000 in a short time without force, and the examples he gives are hardly migrations or exoduses. Academics, idealists, utopianists, lacking any understanding of the practical considerations of their claimed "great moral authority" i think describes many Zionist thinkers and writers. He wrote this work to try and influence other Zionists, and i think it's either an oblique suggestion not to care much about the consequences, or he was just an idiot.

Far afield tho from article work and best sources. I think there is plenty of opportunity to put some weight behind the oft contested "as much land and as few Arabs as possible" with article text, but this current quote isn't really helping the reader there. fiveby(zero) 16:42, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand this quote. The great moral authority is the Peel commission: The Palestine Royal Commission did not shrink from the suggestion. Courage is infectious. Since we have this great moral authority for calmly envisaging the exodus of 350,000 Arabs from one corner of Palestine, we need not regard the possible departure of 900,000 with dismay. (my emphasis). This is immediatly followed by The writer (Jabotinsky referred here to himself, I think), as he has already said, cannot see any necessity for this exodus: it would even be undesirable from many points of view; but if it should appear that the Arabs would prefer to migrate, the prospect can be discussed without any pretence of concern. Also see this quote I brought in the original post here: Unless the Arabs choose to go away of their own accord, there is no need for them to emigrate. NorthernWinds (talk) 19:00, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

"we need not regard the possible departure of 900,000 with dismay" — that's one of several reasons I wrote that Jabotinsky looked favorably on the possibility of Arabs leaving. If he harbored a secret wish to force that departure, I didn't manage to find it in this book and I wouldn't expect it to appear in a work designed for public dissemination. Zero^talk 01:09, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Just throwing a random opinion of mine in on the talk page that doesn't have anything to do with content, probably should not do that! Anyway removed passage, but feel more "Arab problem" content would overall be good for the article. fiveby(zero) 19:49, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Why is so much effort being expended to include a clearly incorrect quote?

1. Jabotinsky wrote in English, we have his exact words.
2. Gorny wrote in Hebrew and quoted Jabotinsky, translating in the process
3. Segev wrote Yamei Kalaniot in Hebrew which was translated to English and published as One Palestine, Complete,
4. Lf8u2 His source is not Gorny's Policy and Imagination (that is the following footnote) but rather Sharett... I think you might be looking at the same edition as i have, look at citations 47, 48, and 49, the are clearly misnumbered.
5. Finkelstein—the hack—cites a translation of Segev's work, not knowing or not caring the exact quote is available in English. He also embellishes in the process "taking heart from Nazi demographic experiments", switching the examples to 1.5 million Poles and Jews that Jabotinsky only saw the beginning of, saying Jabotinsky "exclaimed" this.

Why so much effort to include the quote which has been twice translated, when the exact words are available in English? I admit to opining as to what Jabotinsky really meant, which i shouldn't have and now regret. The passage needs to go, it fails verification. I personally don't think Jabotinsky's views are important and would rather see and have called for a larger expansion of related content. But if someone feels strongly about including the quote, simply put back a properly cited version of the content later. fiveby(zero) 22:49, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Minor correction: Gorny did not quote Jabotinsky; he reproduced a portion of the Hebrew book in the appendix, which is what Segev cites. NorthernWinds (talk) 23:11, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

@Fiveby What is to be done then, are we allowed to leave misinformation on pages? NorthernWinds (talk) 23:16, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

There is a consensus required restriction on this page, in my opinion that restriction has the result of making the core policies subordinate to the whims and opinions of the WP's worst editors. You might start an RfC to try and gain consensus for the change, or take it as a win that you convinced the convincible. fiveby(zero) 16:14, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

The quote and Finkelstein cited content preceding it are not the issue. Rather, it is the substance it denotes as covered in RS. There is ample secondary sourcing stating that after the outbreak of World War 2 Jabotinsky drew on the example of among other Hitler's demographic policies to argue in favor of transfer in Palestine. Finkelstein and Segev are backed by Rubin, who has done the most recent original scholarly research on this subject drawing on Jabotinsky's archives, Khalidi, Brenner, Morris, and it is also confirmed in the primary sources itself. It therefore only warrants removal if in its place we adequately cover what the RS state.

I propose the following replacement of the sole reliance on Finkelstein with the other secondary sourcing, and reflecting its contents:

The Zionist leadership viewed the mass transfer of the Arabs as morally permissible, but were unsure of its political effectiveness. Much of the Zionist leadership spoke in strong support of the transfer plan, asserting that there is nothing immoral about it. Within the Zionist movement, two perspectives developed with respect to the partition proposal; the first was a complete rejection of partition, the second was acceptance of the idea of partition on the basis that it would eventually allow for expansion to all territories within "the boundaries of Zionist aspirations." 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. However, "Palestine's Arabs did not wish to evacuate the land of their ancestors... The matter raised ethical questions that troubled the Yishuv". The right wing of the Zionist movement at times expressed hesitancy and even opposition to transfer, with Jabotinsky initially objecting to it on moral grounds, while others mainly focused on its impracticality.

After 1939, with the outbreak of World War 2, Jabotinsky became disillusioned with the prospect of minority rights being upheld in Europe, concluding that the era of such protections had come to an end. He came to support transfer and expulsion, including the Peel Commission's proposal, invoking the precedents the 1923 Greek-Turkish population exchange and the demographic policies of Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin. Referring to the population exchange agreement between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union for the resettlement of Baltic Germans in occupied Poland, Jabotinsky wrote:

There is no choice: the Arabs must make room for the Jews in Eretz Israel. If it was possible to transfer the Baltic peoples, it is also possible to move the Palestinian Arabs.

Lf8u2 (talk) 05:16, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

This is out of focus. The section is "The Peel Commission partition proposal," and the paragraph about Jabotinsky is unrelated. I think your proposal is great up until the second paragraph NorthernWinds (talk) 15:50, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

The preceding paragraph is about Zionist attitudes to transfer in response to and engagement with the Peel Commission. Jabotinsky's revisionist position was part of this discourse, as noted in RS, which also directly discusses it in relation to his shifting position on the Commission. I had not included that in my proposed version for brevity's sake although it is in the citation. I have updated it now to include it in-text: He came to support transfer and expulsion, including the Peel Commission's proposal, invoking the precedents the 1923 Greek-Turkish population exchange and the demographic policies of Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin. Lf8u2 (talk) 08:07, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

@Lf8u2 I still think this dedicates too much text to Jabotinsky. It would be an improvement to change The right wing of the Zionist movement at times expressed hesitancy and even opposition to transfer, with Jabotinsky initially objecting to it on moral grounds, while others mainly focused on its impracticality. To: The right wing of the Zionist movement at times expressed hesitancy and even opposition to transfer, with Jabotinsky initially objecting to it on moral grounds, while others mainly focused on its impracticality. Shortly before his death after the outbreak of World War II, Jabotinsky switched his position. There is still the issue and that there are disagreements and it's a bit more complex than that. If we were to discuss these, it would end up with Jabotinsky getting a disproportional amount of space. Perhaps can say "Some say... while others disagree" but that would still not suffice in my opinion, since there are additional important details given by Galnoor. NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 09:53, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Also these additional details are not about responses to the Peel Commission, and the citation that follows including the Peel Commission's proposal does not mention the Peel Commission, so it does not directly support the statement. Would be better to add this in Ze'ev Jabotinsky, since it is about his opinions of transfer in general. NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 09:59, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Notes

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)

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)

Oh dear...

Users were arguing for saying Zionists described their movement with terms that havent 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 [2].

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)

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)

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.[3][4][5] 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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 February 2026

Change colonization in to resettlement. An indeginous people cannot colonize its own land of origin.

Change as few arabs as possible - Israel does not have an outstanding policy of expelling arabs from their land ~2026-11776-47 (talk) 07:26, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

 Not done Both of these issues have been discussed at great length and we aren't going to change anything just on the basis of an edit request. Zero^talk 07:35, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

can you explain why this was rejected? Of it isn't the right process, then move it into the correct one. ~2026-12492-45 (talk) 15:25, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

There was already an RfC with several editors discussing and deciding to keep that part. There is currently an ongoing discussion to change it and move it to a place where particular factions of Zionism can be discussed. You cannot participate though, unless you have had an account for a month with a minimum of 500 edits. That is the ongoing process. (See Moving "as few Arabs" below, with 18 people in the discussion and 104 comments to date). VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 21:46, 26 February 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)

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

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: [6]

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)

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)

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)

Books without pages

@Fiveby:, from your recent edit, as I have the unfortunate circumstance to have to work with epubs, what can help (while its not as good as a page number) is you can add "loc=[CHAPTER NAME]" which is better than just the entire book. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 19:05, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

I have a pdf converted from epub so lost the pagination. Think i marked some of these as page needed with the intention of going back and finding page #'s later. I'll try and work on that and find a different copy of Khalidi. Like to just remove it tho, the article should say something about Zionism and anticolonialism, not say Khalidi says something about it. fiveby(zero) 23:19, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

If you can find the book at archive.org, you can search for the passage even if the book is not readable and it tells you the page number. Zero^talk 02:02, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 February 2026

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.

---

Change "Zionists wanted to create a Jewish state in Palestine with as much land, as many Jews, and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible." to "Zionists wanted to create a Jewish state in which they could guarantee safety, sovereignty, and freedom to Jews escaping persecution." Maximswintonz (talk) 07:07, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

•  Not done Please see the banner at the top of this talk page, and also the edit request right above this one. Sigh. I₂Overcome ^talk 07:11, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

  At this point, a bot should be made to automatically respond to requests containing " few Palestinian Arabs as possible " NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 07:54, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

  I requested semi-protection, which would also do the trick. I₂Overcome ^talk 08:00, 28 February 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.