Talk:Zionism

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

The claim that Jabotinsky "drew inspiration from the Nazi demographic policies"

This claim that appears in the "The Peel Commission transfer proposal" section is based on a heavily truncated quote from Jabotinsky's book "The Jewish War Front", published in 1940, after the outbreak of WWII, and grossly misrepresents Jabotinsky's actual attitude towards the idea of population transfer.

First of all, for most of his life Jabotinsky vehemently opposed this idea, including as late as 1937, after it was proposed by the Peel Commission.

Second, while his opposition to population transfer weakened towards 1940, he still insisted that it would be "undesirable from many perspectives" and only considered the option of voluntary transfer.

Finally, this change of heart was not "inspired by Nazi demographic policies", but was primarily driven by the worsening conditions of European Jewry and the urgent need to find a solution for the large number of Jewish refugees. Additionally, he noted that the idea of population transfer was gaining increased support at the time, including from U.S. President Roosevelt. The cherry-picked quote mentioning Hitler appears in Jabotinsky's book within a broader discussion based on his observation that "the idea of redistributing minorities en masse is becoming more popular among 'the best people' and there is no longer any taboo on the discussion of the subject."

Consequently, I suggest removing this misleading passage.

References
References

DancingOwl (talk) 15:47, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

I dont think the passage contradicts what you're saying here:

1. He drew inspiration from similar policies in the 20th century
2. He sees the world as accommodating to population transfer schemes, with particular reference to hitler who gave it a 'good name'

DMH223344 (talk) 19:20, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

I think your description is much more accurate than how it's currently phrased in the article - the reference to Hitler is just one example he uses to demonstrate that the world is accommodating to population transfer idea, and framing Hitler's "demographic policies" as the reason for Zhabotinsky's change of heart is highly misleading. Not to mention that this phrasing omits the fact that he still considered population transfer 'undesirable from many perspectives,' and that his primary reason for being willing to consider it was the dire condition of European Jews following the outbreak of World War II. DancingOwl (talk) 09:05, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Just adding a dummy comment to prevent the bot from archiving this topic again DancingOwl (talk) 18:01, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

@DancingOwl, an alternative to removing this passage is contextualising it by adding the sources you've mentioned here. Currently only Finkelstein's viewpoint is represented in the article. To satisfy WP:NPOV we have to provide a balanced coverage, something along the lines of

“ Vladimir Jabotinsky rejected the 1937 Peel Commission's partition plan and condemning it as "ethnic cleansing." However, in his final 1940 book amid World War II, his position evolved to accept the possibility of voluntary Arab emigration—a shift linked to his growing concern about Jewish refugees in Europe and the increasing international acceptance of population transfers. ”

Alaexis_¿question? 20:58, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Actually, the paragraph that precedes this passage already contains a statement that is very similar to what you suggest:

It was the right wing of the Zionist movement that put forward the main arguments against transfer, with Jabotinsky strongly objecting it on moral grounds, and others mainly focusing on its impracticality. However, in his last book "The Jewish War Front" published in 1940, after the outbreak of WWII, Jabotinsky no longer ruled out the possibility of voluntary population transfer, though he still didn't view as a necessary solution.

The only things that is missing there is the "a shift linked to his growing concern about Jewish refugees in Europe and the increasing international acceptance of population transfers" part, which is indeed an important part of the context that we can add to that text. DancingOwl (talk) 18:34, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree with @DMH223344 – the quote you've quoted agrees with the framing in the article, I don't think it needs to be removed. Smallangryplanet (talk) 12:14, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

I quoted two authors - Shilon and Shechtman - neither of those quotes support the framing that Jabotinsky "drew inspiration from the Nazi demographic policies". DancingOwl (talk) 12:26, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

I support the edit DancingOwl is proposing. Relying on Finkelstein (2016), a highly polemical and not very scholarly book, skews the interpretation, and it would be better to go with how scholarly sources present this. BobFromBrockley (talk) 01:01, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

I also agree with @DMH223344 and @Smallangryplanet that the quote should stay as is. The Finkelstein source meets RS, and subjective claims about its "polemical" or "not very scholarly" nature are not relevant. It is from a subject-matter expert and a reputable publisher. Moreover the claim that Jabotinsky was solely inspired by practical and moral concerns to support the ethnic cleansing of Arab Palestinians is not true, and it is not only Finkelstein who notes this. Madeleine Tress (e.g. pages 317, 320) notes that these practical/moral concerns were merely a "convenient excuse", and that a racist and supremacist view inspired by fascists like Hitler and Mussolini undergirded his support for the ethnic cleansing. Rashid Khalidi has made the same point in reference to his inspiration by Stalin's mass expulsions (page 187), quoting him: "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." There is ample sourcing for this. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 04:19, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Finkelstein is not an historian but an activist. He was fired from his university. It is not a RS at all. Michael Boutboul (talk) 08:24, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

the claim that "Mainstream Zionist groups for the most part differ more in style than substance..."

The lead currently includes the following claim:

Mainstream Zionist groups for the most part differ more in style than substance, having in some cases adopted similar strategies to achieve their goals, such as violence or compulsory transfer to deal with the Palestinians

The claim is not supported by the sources:

• The referenced pages/sections from Penslar 2023, Ben-Ami 2007, Shapira 1992 and Shlaim 2001 don't contain anything about mainstream Zionist groups differing more in style than substance
• Sternhell 1999 does talk about "a difference of form and not an essential difference", but than goes on to elaborate:

Its adherents unanimously viewed Zionism as an enterprise for the rescue of the Jews and their transfer en masse to Palestine and, later, to the state of Israel. They all believed that as far as circumstances permitted, the whole land had to be conquered and settled by all possible means. They all recognized that Zionism's task was to bring about a cultural revolution such as the Jews had not experienced since the conquest of Canaan. And all, finally, held the Bible to be the deed to the land, the entire land of their forefathers.

The only part that can be potentially interpreted as referring to "violence or compulsory transfer" is "the whole land had to be conquered and settled by all possible means", but such interpretation would be a clear WP:SYNTH.

• Similarly, while passage from Gorny 1987 does talk about differences of "style of political action" between Jabotinsky and the other Zionist leaders, neither it nor the subsequent text supports the claim that they all 'adopted similar strategies to achieve their goals, such as violence or compulsory transfer to deal with the Palestinians'
• The passage from Chomsky 1999 talks about contemporary Labor and Likud parties - not the pre-state Zionists groups - and also doesn't say anything about mainstream Zionist groups 'adopting similar strategies to achieve their goals, such as violence or compulsory transfer to deal with the Palestinians'
• Sabbagh-Khoury does claim that "it was the Zionist Left that pioneered the violence of settler colonization.", but again inferring from this a general claim that "mainstream Zionist groups for the most part differ more in style than substance" or the specific claim about compulsory transfer would be a clear WP:SYNTH.

DancingOwl (talk) 09:43, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

I suspect the ref to Penslar may simply have the wrong page; a quick search found this on page 43: The continued application of classic Zionist categories is problematic not only because change over time calls their relevance into question. Those in the past who identified with one Zionist camp or another were unaware of or reluctant to admit commonalities between them and their mutual influence. This was particularly the case for Labor and Revisionist Zionism during the heyday of their internecine struggles during the 1930s and 1940s. The social and economic ideologies of the two movements differed profoundly, but their goals and methods diverged more in style than substance. Given that it overtly uses the "style vs. substance" comparison in as many words. My guess is that the ref was added for that and the page number added only later on, accidentally target to a page that was less central to the main point. --Aquillion (talk) 14:21, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

• For Ben-Ami I found something similar; page 3 has nothing but page 313 has the following: Two schools did exist in Israel, and indeed in the Zionist movement, with regard to the diplomacy of peace and the conditions that justify going to war. In the 1940s, however, and in the history of the peace overtures in the aftermath of the 1948 war, the two-school theory was just that, a theory. It simply did not exist in real life. The differences, if any, between moderates and activists were then microscopic, more a question of style and tactics than of substance. It seems almost certain that that was the page that was intended to be cited. --Aquillion (talk) 14:32, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
• The ref to Shlaim is probably based on this quote from the prologue - Weizmann’s policy toward the Palestine Arabs is usually described as moderate, but it was moderate in style much more than in substance. Not sure if that's an ideal thing to cite for this, since it's not comparing different strands directly that I can see, but it might be usable elsewhere. --Aquillion (talk) 14:54, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
• Shapira is a lot more complex and the cite to it doesn't seem to be based on a single pull-quote but on an overall reading of her conclusion, which (summarizing the parts relevant to this sentence) largely focuses on the inevitability of Zionism reaching a single endpoint. I do think that it supports the statement, perhaps even in more depth than the snappy quotes the others are used for, but it's complicated and probably requires its own section if we're going to discuss it. --Aquillion (talk) 14:54, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

  @Aquillion, judging by the quotes you've cited, it seems like the second part of the sentence (such as violence or compulsory transfer to deal with the Palestinians) isn't supported by sources. Or am I missing something? Alaexis_¿question? 21:56, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

That is the "single endpoint" I mention Shapira discussing, although it's a bit more complex than that because Shapira basically says that there was a degree of self-delusion early on about what the Palestinians would accept, which allowed early Zionist groups to have a degree of plausible deniability with regards to what they were actually pushing for and what the implications of it would be. But you can see more extensive citations regarding that in the body of the article - According to Anita Shapira, beginning in this period, Labor Zionism's use of violence against Palestinians for political means was essentially the same as that of radical conservative Zionist groups cited to Shapira 1992, pp. 247, 249, 251–252, 350, 365. Although the lead version is much more cautiously-worded than that due to the "in some cases." --Aquillion (talk) 02:48, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

I finally had the time to go over the pages from Shapira's book and I find it hard to understand how those passages can bee seen as supporting the claim in the lead that Mainstream Zionist groups for the most part differ more in style than substance, having in some cases adopted similar strategies to achieve their goals, such as violence or compulsory transfer to deal with the Palestinians. (The quote from the last paragraph of "Zionist policies and the 1936–1939 Arab Revolt" subsection that you mentioned is also not consistent with what those passage actually say, but I will address this in a separate topic).

In fact, many of those passages explicitly discuss fundamental differences between Lehi/IZL and Labor.

Here are just two examples:

• p. 247:

Labor movement leaders were quick to realize the dangers immanent in the IZL. They viewed the acts of terror initiated by the organization as sheer insanity: Not only did they fail to stop Arab terror, they even threw oil on the fire, pushing the Arab population to rally around the Arab terrorist gangs... the mass indiscriminate killings of the aged, women, and children by the IZL awakened disgust and grave misgivings.

• p. 249:

Since the IZL’s uniqueness and strength were principally associated with its terrorist activities, discrediting the organization necessitated a fundamental repudiation of its methods. In this way, the IZL’s identity as a fascist organization was mobilized as a weapon in the struggle against the powerful lure that indiscriminate force had for certain youth groups. The phrase “fascist approach” was repeatedly used to describe their actions. Thus, the inclusion of the dispute about the use of force within the boundaries of the overall confrontation between right and left ultimately led to the identification of the unrestrained use of force with one camp and its discrediting with the other.

And, again, nowhere in those pages does Shapira talk about "compulsory transfer". DancingOwl (talk) 16:33, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for locating those quotes.

A few comments:

• Penslar quote is much more nuanced that the statement it's used to allegedly support - the "the social and economic ideologies of the two movements differed profoundly" part is not consistent with the over-generalized claim that Mainstream Zionist groups for the most part differ more in style than substance.
• Ben-Ami's quote talks about similarity in a specific context that includes two key parts - 1) with regard to the diplomacy of peace and the conditions that justify going to war 2) In the 1940s...and in the history of the peace overtures in the aftermath of the 1948 war. Over-generalizing it to a simplistic statement about absence of substantial differences between different mainstream Zionist groups throughout movements history violates the requirement take care not to go beyond what the sources express or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context, stated in WP:OR.
• I agree that Shlaim's quote that talks specifically about Weizmann cannot be used as a source for a general statement about different Zionists groups
• Regarding Shapira:

1. The period in question is the 1936-1939 Arab Revolt, so once again we have a critical historical context absent in the lead that makes a much more general claim.
2. There is no mention of compulsory transfer here
3. I didn't have the time to thoroughly examine the whole pp. 247, 249, 251–252, 350, 365 page range yet, but already on p. 247 the following statement can be found:

   Labor movement leaders were quick to realize the dangers immanent in the IZL. They viewed the acts of terror initiated by the organization as sheer insanity: Not only did they fail to stop Arab terror, they even threw oil on the fire, pushing the Arab population to rally around the Arab terrorist gangs.

   This seems to be directly contradicting the claim that Labor Zionism's use of violence against Palestinians for political means was essentially the same as that of radical conservative Zionist groups, but I need to find the time to examine all the referenced passages more carefully.

DancingOwl (talk) 10:14, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree with DancingOwl. While clearly some good sources have used phrasing involving “style” and “substance” these are contentious interpretations which we shouldn’t put in our voice, as they’re contradicted by others. I don’t think the passage adds to this already long article anyway. BobFromBrockley (talk) 01:05, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Peel Commission partition plan

"In response to the revolt the British appointed in 1937 a commission of inquiry that eventually recommended the partition of the land. The proposal included creating a small Jewish state occupying 17 percent of Mandatory Palestine's territory, while Jerusalem and a corridor to the sea would remain under British control, and the remaining 75 percent of the territory would form a Palestinian state connected to Transjordan under King Abdullah's rule.

Desmartypants replaced "would form a Palestinian state connected to Transjordan" with "would be connected to Transjordan" and TarnishedPath reverted. There are multiple issues. The Khalidi source is the wrong one (it should the Hundred Years' War, not The Iron Cage). The NYT article, which is defective and unreadable at its archive link, mentions the topic only in passing. It says "Palestinian state on the rest of the territory, linked with Transjordan under King Abdullah" matching the previous text, but it is wrong. The review article of Morris is more polemic than I would choose to cite but at least it gets the facts right: "Palestine Arab area be united with the neighboring Emirate of Transjordan, which was then ruled by Prince Abdullah". The point is "united", not "linked", which can be better sourced to Morris' serious works like "Righteous Victims" or specialist works like Galnor's "The Partition of Palestine". The Peel Commission report is perfectly clear: "an Arab State, consisting of Trans-Jordan united with that part of Palestine which lies to the east and south of a frontier such as we suggest" (Chapter XII, Section 1), "it must be remembered that the plan we are submitting involves the inclusion of Trans-Jordan in the Arab State." (ditto, Section 5). There is no mention of linkage, only of union. Also, no mention of "Palestinian State", though perhaps that is a lesser sin given that a large part of the "Arab State" would be in Palestine. Zero^talk 12:36, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

@Zero0000 The NYT archive link worked fine for me when I accessed it yesterday. TarnishedPath^talk 23:39, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

@Tarnishedpath: I have access to the original here. It has footnotes that appear in a side bar but are missing in the archive version. Worse, many entire paragraphs are also missing, something like half of the article, and the indications of which panelist wrote which part are missing. I guess it could be my computer, but I tried both Safari and Firefox with the same result. In any case, what are we doing citing a newspaper article for something covered by multiple scholarly books? Zero^talk 00:59, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Yeah I can't really argue with that. I just looked up the author Emily Bazelon and while they are a senior research fellow, that's at Yale Law School and they don't appear to be a subject matter expert in international relations or politics. TarnishedPath^talk 03:19, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

What's the consensus? Currently the article still says "would form a Palestinian state", even though the Peel Commission never used the phrase "Palestinian state". Could I change it? Drsmartypants(Smarty M.D) (talk) 02:41, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't know. @Zero0000, what were your suggestions? TarnishedPath^talk 03:29, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

I propose to replace "The proposal included creating a small Jewish state occupying 17 percent of Mandatory Palestine's territory, while Jerusalem and a corridor to the sea would remain under British control, and the remaining 75 percent of the territory would form a Palestinian state connected to Transjordan under King Abdullah's rule."

by "The proposal was to create a Jewish state in 19% of Mandatory Palestine. A further 6% would form an enclave from Jerusalem to the sea to remain under British mandate. The remaining 75%, of which the Negev desert comprised two thirds, would be united with Transjordan to form an independent Arab state." Plus two or three good references.

There is a problem-for-the-fussy here. I don't know a strong source for the areas of the various parts, and the Peel Commission report does not state them. There are precise numbers in the follow-up Woodhead Commission report but that was after they made some adjustments to the Jerusalem enclave. I'm hoping the difference is insignificant. Also, although there is a presumption in the literature that Abdullah would be the boss of the new Arab state, and the commission was not stupid enough to imagine that Abdullah would agree to the plan otherwise, do we have a source which states it explicitly? Otherwise it has to stay out. Zero^talk 11:52, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

I've been sick the past couple days so I couldn't response earlier.

I'm fine with those numbers if you can get the exact citations to the report. We can have a note explaining the modifications to the Jerusalem enclave. I don't think the report explicitly stated that Abdullah would be the king, but there's no hurt in simply mentioning the fact that he was the King of Jordan at the time. Drsmartypants(Smarty M.D) (talk) 02:19, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

References

MOS:LEAD

Hi @Henry.Jones.03021955: As @TarnishedPath has already mentioned, MOS:LEAD says that content in the lead does not have to be cited if it is cited in the body of the article. You have removed two sentences from the lead with the justification that I've looked at the relevant sections and the claims being made here in the lead are not actually supported by sources in the body:

1. The Zionist claim to Palestine was based on the notion that the Jews' historical right to the land outweighed that of the Arabs.

2. In 1922, the British Mandate for Palestine governed by Britain explicitly privileged Jewish settlers over the local Palestinian population.

Both sentences are extensively cited in the body, and in varying capacities have been discussed ad nauseum on this talk page, with the result being that current consensus is that they should stay. If you look at this footnote you can see ample citations for sentence (1), and this section for sentence (2). Hope this reassures you that the content should be in the lead! Thanks. Smallangryplanet (talk) 12:10, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

@Smallangryplanet, I've left a message for them on their talk requesting they self-revert as they have breached the active arbitration remedy requirement that changes challenged by reversion require affirmative consensus in talk in order to be reinstated. I'll await them remedying their breach. TarnishedPath^talk 12:24, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath oops, I missed that. I've gone ahead and reverted already - shall I revert my own revert and await their action? Smallangryplanet (talk) 12:26, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

@Smallangryplanet no, leave your edit as is and I'll not pursue the issue further with them unless they continue. TarnishedPath^talk 12:27, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath sounds good to me, thanks! Smallangryplanet (talk) 12:43, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Of all that parts in the lead to decide to go after, these two I thought would be rather unanimously agreed upon by Zionist, non-Zionist, and anti-Zionist assessors. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 14:29, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Template:Press BRD

For the interested, regarding [1], please see Template_talk:Press#Does_Anti-Defamation_League,_specifically_Editing_for_Hate:_How_Anti-Israel_and_Anti-Jewish_Bias_Undermines_Wikipedia’s_Neutrality_fit_in_this_template?. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:47, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Edit request 21 March 2025

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.

---

Description of suggested change: The use of the term colonisation is inappropriate, inaccurate, politically motivated and hate inciting. In a contemporary context it is designed to demonise and delegitimise Israel and incite hatred of that nation state and anyone who supports it. Being the only predominantly Jewish state on the planet and the only place were Jews can determine their own future it is therefore fundamentally antisemitic. Zionism should most simply be described as the desire or belief that Jews have self-determination. It is fundamentally antisemitic to describe the 2000+ year long desire of Jews to return to Zion as colonisation.

To describe the return of an indigenous minority - that has been persecuted, oppressed and murdered en masse in virtually every country they have ever resided - to their ancestral homeland as colonisation is to spread ignorance and bigotry and the commensurate incitement of hate.

The whole first paragraph reeks of politically motivated and antisemitic nonsense.

You should look at your own article on the history of Zionism for better content here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Zionism#:~:text=As%20an%20organized%20nationalist%20movement,organizations%20of%20Hovevei%20Zion%20(%20lit.

Alternatively I can write one.

Diff:

−

ORIGINAL_TEXT

+

CHANGED_TEXT

Mojo2025 (talk) 21:02, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done Mojo2025 -- I truly appreciate the time you've taken to register an edit request. Please review WP:EDITXY and provide the specific and exact edits you'd like to see made, keeping in mind any edits should be supported by WP:RS which should also be provided. I'm closing this request for the time being due to its non-specificity, however, you should feel free to open a new edit request once you've had a chance to prepare the above information. Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia! P.S. -- you may also be interested in checking out the WP:ADVENTURE, which is a useful learning program to orient new editors to WP. Chetsford (talk) 21:35, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

In addition to the formal aspects requested by Chetsford, your request must be supported by reliable sources. Wikipedia cannot be considered a reliable source by Wikipedia itself. Michael Boutboul (talk) 09:58, 22 March 2025 (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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 March 2025

The opening paragraph in this topic is at least one sided and potentially historically inaccurate. I would like to submit a short alternative narrative, with sources, to introduce some balance. The cited authorities for the claims of the opening paragraph are themselves from one perspective, namely that of anti-Zionist Muslim historians.

There is no criticism in this, per se, it is simply that it is one-sided. How do I go about submitting an alternative narrative for the editors’ consideration?

Potential conflict of interest: I am a member of UK Lawyers for Israel. I am not Jewish nor do I have any vested interest in the state of Israel, Zionism or Judaism. I approach this from an academic perspective. I am not paid in any way. 2A00:23C6:B61A:6A01:5006:7FD2:8919:59D1 (talk) 14:43, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

The WP:ARBECR rules means that you are limited edit requests that comply with WP:EDITXY. If it does not comply it will be removed. Sean.hoyland (talk) 14:50, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Firstly, welcome to Wikipedia. As Sean.hoyland explained, if you wish to request an edit to a protected page, you need to make a clear and specific request. That means quoting the exact text you want to change, followed by the new proposed text. Each change must be supported by one or more reliable sources.

That said, to be frank, the chances of success are low unless the proposed change is minor. You can't see it here, but this talk page already contains thousands of lines of debate over small edits.

I’d also recommend creating a Wikipedia account—it will give you more credibility and access. If you're interested, I’d be happy to explain how it works. Michael Boutboul (talk) 15:22, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. Melmann 19:47, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

section on history and spread of Zionism beyond Europe

This article should have a section (and eventually perhaps a child article) on the history and spread of Zionism beyond Europe. I've started articles on the history of Zionism in Morocco and Iraq, which need further development, and there should also be similar articles made for Egypt, Yemen, Tunisia, Turkey, Persian/Iran, etc. There is a wealth of scholarship that could be incorporated into this article that would help give it a more global scope, and I hope the community of active editors here might be interested in contributing to the task. إيان (talk) 19:54, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Edit request regarding colonisation 31 March 2025

Description of suggested change: May I suggest that, in the interest of neutrality, one removes the word 'colonization'. This is a politically charged term and controversial, given the disputed status surrounding the indigeneity of Jews to the region in question. Of course, colonisation must involve a foreign force, so this claim is factually ambiguous and perhaps a matter of opinion or semantics.

The exact removal should be of 'pursued through the colonization of Palestine' so the sentence simply ends in ...national home of the Jewish people. These valid criticisms surrounding 'colonization' should be invoked in the Anti-Zionism section rather than introduction, which should ideally be neutral. Thank you for considering this change. Diff:

−

ORIGINAL_TEXT

+

CHANGED_TEXT

Shalomiemyhomies (talk) 19:57, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

I concur. עמית לונן (talk) 20:24, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

It was/is a colonial project. There's nothing "controversial" about this fact reflected in the overwhelming preponderance of scholarship.Dan Murphy (talk) 20:49, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

 Declined Section two of WP:CHANGEXY, which operationalizes some of our policies and guidelines, requires that: "Administrators can respond only to requests that are either uncontroversial improvements (correcting typos, grammar, or reference formatting; improving the reliability or efficiency of template code) or are already supported by a consensus of editors, usually on the protected page's talk page."
I observe that another editor has objected to this edit request, which indicates there may not be a consensus of support for this change. Due to that, neither I nor anyone has the authority to implement this edit request, on which grounds alone I am declining it (but without comment as to its underlying merit). You may open a new thread on this Talk page to discuss the request and, if a consensus emerges in support of the change, a new edit request can be made. (Before doing so, please check the Talk page archives to ensure this topic has not already been addressed.)
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Chetsford (talk) 22:22, 31 March 2025 (UTC)