Talk:Zionism

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

Length

This article is massively overlength, more than double the size identified at Wikipedia:Summary_style#Article_size. I propose, as a first step towards resolving this problem, reinstating this edit. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose wholesale specific diff, support some cuts. In my view it removes some things that are valuable while retaining things that aren't. However I do agree with some of the removals, such as the clause, "a term denoting the force needed to prevent Palestinian resistance against colonization", the Morris quote, the Herzl quote about antisemitism, the quotes in the section about Gandhi, the lengthy part about South Africa, and the lengthy quotes in the section about Chomsky and Finkelstein, the Sternhell and Busbridge parts. That should all be cut in my view. I'd leave the stuff about the declaration of independence and the framework of the Israeli government since I think that's fairly critical to Zionism, and I'd leave the stuff about the revival of Hebrew. Andre🚐 05:04, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

• Re: "retaining things that aren't": not proposing this be the only edit, just a first step. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:14, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, that's fair, I just meant that in an area where you chose to cut I saw other nearby things I might have cut instead and flowed it out different. Andre🚐 05:22, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

• Sure. I think that's a reason to restore the tag, as it will encourage continued work on the problem rather than just a one-and-done. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  Fine by me. I know other editors tend to reflexively revert the addition of maintenance tags to the article, citing the consensus required restriction. However I personally have no objection to a too long tag. Andre🚐 05:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  If an editor believes an article is too long, perhaps they'd be better of considering/starting a split discussion, rather than resorting to tagging. TarnishedPath^talk 06:20, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  The two big targets are the History and Anti Zionism sections, without any progress there, overall progress is unlikely. Selfstudier (talk) 10:58, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Some of the cuts make sense to me. Would be better to trim things one by one with an edit summary rather than in one swoop that will inevitably be contested. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

agreed, and also agree with self that we should focus on the longest sections. The antizionism section in particular seems excessively long and detailed. DMH223344 (talk) 16:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

The current word count is 17,732, well into the zone where a split is recommended.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Regarding the idea of a split, it seems that these splits have already happened. There are already two other Anti-Zionism articles and two other History of Zionism articles.

So it seems reasonable to cut down those sections brief summaries of the other existing articles. The anti-Zionism section seems easier and IMO could almost entirely be moved to the other articles, if it isn't already just a duplication of them. But it seems like a bit more work to figure out how much, and which parts, of the history should remain in this article. Bob drobbs (talk) 22:34, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

adding some justification in the edit summaries wouldnt hurt either DMH223344 (talk) 05:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

While I appreciate the effort you've put into this, it's important to be careful that our presentation here reflects that in RS. For example, the removal of "which began to emerge even before the appearance of modern antisemitism as a major factor" from the sentence "The development of Zionism and other Jewish nationalist movements grew out of these sentiments, which began to emerge even before the appearance of modern antisemitism as a major factor" gives it a different meaning, and minimizes the importance of antisemitism.

Also, there is now no mention in the article that Zionism was not the only form of Jewish nationalism. DMH223344 (talk) 05:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Overall, I think the work done in these edits to trim the article while also to strengthen has been an improvement.

I also quibble with some of the specific trims, e.g. I agree with DMH that a brief mention of other forms of Jewish nationalism is due. BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Should we decide on a target length? Otherwise the tag will stick around forever. DMH223344 (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

From the style guide, 8,000 words is considered good. According to the original comment this article is almost double that. Just to throw out a number, how about splitting the difference and seeking to reduce it to 12,000 words? Bob drobbs (talk) 22:36, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Should we mention Altneuland at all?

I agree that Altneuland is important, but it doesnt seem to have been important enough for this article for there to be more than 2 disconnected sentences about it. I suggest we remove them since they dont seem to be adding much at the moment. DMH223344 (talk) 16:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Chomsky shouldn’t be cited in the intro

He’s a linguist and polemicist, not a historian. The claim that “ Mainstream Zionist groups for the most part differ more in style than substance” isn’t true imo but that’s probably more than I want to bite off.Prezbo (talk) 17:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

That's a little reductive of Chomsky's career. Frankly there's a lot of people, particularly in Anthropology, who think Chomsky is at his weakest as a linguist. On the other hand Chomsky has been a political analyst since at least 1967 and he has published multiple very prominent books on world politics. Simonm223 (talk) 17:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Can we agree that he has, how can I put it, a very particular viewpoint? And Chomsky has had his share of self-owns in the political arena as well. It's like citing William F. Buckley or Friedrich Hayek (without attribution) in the lead of the Soviet Union article. I'm just saying, when I clicked on this footnote, I expected to see sources written by historians or political scientists. Seeing Chomsky makes me trust the statement less rather than more. Prezbo (talk) 18:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

For the nth time this week a person being left wing does not make them unreliable as a source. I also don't agree with everything Chomsky ever said. For instance I think he decidedly lost his debate with Foucault. I've also been critical, in this thread, of his work on language acquisition. I am not suggesting Chomsky is infallable. However to suggest that citing possibly the most prominent Jewish anarchist political commentator in the world about Zionism is like citing Hayek without attribution for the Soviet Union is such a bizarre simile that I'm actually having trouble parsing it. For the record I do think statements from Chomsky should be attributed. I just think, considering his prominence as a political commentator over the last 60 years, his opinions are highly due inclusion, even in the lede. Simonm223 (talk) 18:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Anarchism is an unpopular ideology, I'm not impressed by the "most prominent Jewish anarchist political commentator in the world" descriptor. He's a prominent left-wing commentator who has opinions on many subjects, not a widely acknowledged expert on this particular topic. If it was Edward Said instead of Chomsky I probably would have let it go. But if we agree that it's inappropriate to cite him in the lede without attribution then I suppose that's progress. Prezbo (talk) 18:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Sadly Said has been dead for more than 20 years which leaves him unable to speak to the suffering of Palestinians today. And, frankly, your personal opinions of anarchism are entirely irrelevant to matters of WP:DUE. Simonm223 (talk) 18:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

The Chomsky quote we're discussing is from 1999. Prezbo (talk) 18:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Wait so this is just about bundled citation 9? No that's obviously WP:DUE. It's from a very widely cited book produced by a venerable publishing house and, just to put a ribbon on top, Said wrote the foreword. Simonm223 (talk) 19:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Your claims of WP:ONUS are entirely backward. WP:BRD is pretty clear - you were bold. I reverted. Now you are edit warring. Simonm223 (talk) 19:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Please provide some justification better than disliking anarchists for cutting the Chomsky book. Simonm223 (talk) 19:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree with what Simon wrote. Your personal opinion is not grounds for deletion. DMH223344 (talk) 19:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

To explain my edit summary a bit further: this just seems like an outlandish claim to me, no matter how many citations are alleged to back it up. The differences between Hashomer Hatzair and Irgun were stylistic? It's flattening a huge range of political opinions over a broad expanse of time. I don't expect to win this one bc my commitment to the topic isn't that great but it's not an appropriate statement for the lead. Prezbo (talk) 19:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Your instincts are not an appropriate measure - nor is your opinion of Chomsky's political ideology. This is just WP:IDONTLIKEIT only now you've created two threads about it. Chomsky is due inclusion for his attributed opinion. There are very few living people more prominent in this space. Simonm223 (talk) 19:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Forget about Chomsky. Can you defend the claim that "Mainstream Zionist groups for the most part differ more in style than substance"? Prezbo (talk) 19:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't need to. A reliable source said it. Simonm223 (talk) 19:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Flatly you're now asking that we conduct WP:OR rather than include a reliable source and, in fact, are asking us to forget the source is reliable and just look at the words you dislike that the reliable source said. Simonm223 (talk) 19:39, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Spoken like a true Wikipedian. I'm sure I could dig up some sources for the counterclaim that "there is a wide range of opinion in the Zionist movement." Here's one.[1] Of course it has a distinct POV but that doesn't mean it's unreliable, right? Here's another one from a University Press.[2] This isn't really about sources. There's editorial discretion involved in which sources we cite and how we paraphrase their claims. I think this is not a good hill to die on but I'll try to make this my last comment on the issue. Prezbo (talk) 19:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Unlike Chomsky the ADL is not a reliable source for Israel / Palestine conflict discussions. Simonm223 (talk) 19:46, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

On the other hand Zionism and the Creation of a New Society would appear to meet WP:RS criteria and would likely be due inclusion. Though neither of the authors have the significant reputation of Chomsky. Simonm223 (talk) 19:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

In any case, there being a wide range of opinion in the movement does not contradict the statement that the differences between the mainstream groups were primarily differences of style. DMH223344 (talk) 23:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

The range of scholars cited for this claim is very wide: Shapira, Gorny, Ben-Ami, Shlaim, Chomsky, Penslar, Sternhell DMH223344 (talk) 23:07, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I’m not going to track down all of those citations to see how much they really support this sentence. I’ll note that Chomsky and Sternhell are controversial to say the least. Everything about this topic is controversial. Let me further note that the intro of Palestinian nationalism has a while section emphasizing the differences of opinion inside the movement. They’re different movements but not that different. Most political movements contain a diversity of viewpoints, while agreeing on some central tenets. If the article said that about Zionism I would be fine with it. To me that’s very different from saying the differences between Labor and Likud are primarily stylistic. And now I really will try to walk away. Prezbo (talk) 23:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

It would seem that the Chomsky thing isn't attributed though but is being used to discuss a claim in wikivoice. While this sentence has been discussed in the past, WP:CCC. However, maybe this and the last thread should be combined since they seem to be the same thing. I believe this claim is unduly synthetic and an oversimplification, and we've discussed other sources which portray a range of ideological strains within Zionism. Engel, and Shindler, among others, not to rehash the same discussion again. Even Penslar doesn't really support this. Trying to be constructive, maybe there's a way to change the phrasing to accomplish what it's trying to say and summarize those sources that say it without getting into what appears to be a conclusion not stated explicitly in the sources, or portraying that WP:SOURCESDIFFER. Also, there's a change over time element to this. Zionist groups disagreed on quite a few substantial issues but consolidated over time; that fact is elided in the intro as it stands. Andre🚐 23:23, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

No. You are mistaken. It's literally presented as a quote.Simonm223 (talk) 01:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I believe you are the one who is mistaken or it's semantic, but not according to the conventional meaning of attribution on Wikipedia. It's quoted in the footnote, but that's not what we mean by attribution per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Attribution in Wikipedia parlance would mean the article text would read something like "According to theorists a la Chomsky, mainstream Zionist groups for the most part differ more in style than substance...." Andre🚐 03:25, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I support Prezbo's edit. Chomsky is not an appropriate source for the lead. There is no way that he is a best source for this contentious topic. It's simply not his area of expertise; he's not someone cited in the scholarly literature.

The claim is a highly contentious one, that some have made. We can report that, and attribute it. Other serious scholars say the opposite, which we can also report with attribution -- in the body not the lead. It's not something we can say in our voice, and definitely not in the lead.

The other sources cited don't really say what it was being used for either. BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC) (PS speaking as an anarchist-adjacent person I want to add that Chomsky being an anarchist is a really bad reason to remove him. Plenty of serious scholars are also anarchists, and indeed for that matter a few major figures in the Zionist tradition. BobFromBrockley (talk) 19:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC))

But it's not just Chomsky who is making this claim. Even if you remove him from the list the range of scholars making this assessment is very wide. DMH223344 (talk) 19:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

While we may disagree about his relative significance as far as attributed opinion (and for the record I've never said the opinion shouldn't be attributed or should be in wiki voice) I really appreciate you giving a sanity check on those people who denigrated his politics as "unpopular" as if that was just cause to minimize his views.Simonm223 (talk) Simonm223 (talk) 20:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• Chomsky has a huge number of extremely high-profile, highly-cited works on politics published in academic sources. The argument that his only expertise is linguistics is just wrong - he's also an extremely impactful political scholar, to the point where he could trivially pass WP:EXPERTSPS on politics alone (not that that threshold is necessary here, because these are published by reliable high-quality publishers.) He obviously has a stark perspective, and this does have to be evaluated when determining due weight, but his position on Israel is not fringe by any standard; as one of the most highly-cited authors alive (including, yes, in his work on politics) he's a logical source to attribute. Neither is the statement made here particularly WP:EXCEPTIONAL; it seems to be a common position. --Aquillion (talk) 20:36, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Sources used for style not substance

Per DMH comment on Chomsky not being only source, just pasting the sources previously cited:

• Sternhell 1999: "The difference between religious and secular Zionism, be- tween the Zionism of the Left and the Zionism of the Right, was merely a difference of form and not an essential difference."
• Penslar 2023, p. 60
• Ben-Ami 2007, p. 3
• Shapira 1992, Conclusion
• Shlaim 2001, Prologue
• Ben-Ami, Shlomo (2022). Prophets Without Honor. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-006047-3. Archived from the original on June 24, 2024. Retrieved June 23, 2024.
• Gorny 1987, p. 165: "As a member of the Zionist Executive in 1921-3, he [Jabotinsky] soon discovered that what divided him from his colleagues in the Zionist leadership was not political differences, but mainly his style of political action"
• Chomsky 1999, Rejectionism and Accommodation: "In essence, then, the two programs are not very different. Their difference lies primarily in style. Labor is, basically, the party of the educated Europe-oriented elite—managers, bureaucrats, intellectuals, etc. Its historical practice has been to "build facts" while maintaining a low-keyed rhetoric with conciliatory tones, at least in public. In private, the position has been that "it does not matter what the Gentiles say, what matters is what the Jews do" (Ben-Gurion) and that "the borders [of Israel] are where Jews live, not where there is a line on a map" (Golda Meir).21 This has been an effective method for obtaining the ends sought without alienating Western opinion—indeed, while mobilizing Western (particularly American) support."

BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

We could add sources that take the opposite view. Here's two to start with:

• Conforti, Yitzhak (2010). "East and West in Jewish nationalism: conflicting types in the Zionist vision?". Nations and Nationalism. 16 (2): 201–219. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8129.2010.00418.x. The very existence of opposing positions in classical Zionism regarding the vision of the future of the Jewish state reveals the great variety within Jewish nationalism. Zionism represented different Jewish dreams and yearnings that conflicted in their relation to consciousness of the Jewish past as well as to aspirations for the future
• Taylor, Alan R. (1972). "Zionism and Jewish History". Journal of Palestine Studies. 1 (2). Taylor & Francis, Ltd.: 35–51. ISSN 0377-919X. JSTOR 2535953. Retrieved 20 January 2025. The diversity of Zionism greatly facilitated this task, since every sectarian or political preference in the Diaspora had a counterpart within the Zionist movement.

See also Seidler, Boyarin and Shindler quotes in current notes 249-250.

BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

These quotes don't actually refute the quotes above. We would need something along the lines of "left and right in Zionism were essentially different movements, with fundamentally different goals, strategies and tactics." DMH223344 (talk) 17:32, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

The text some of us are disputing is “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.” That seems like an incoherent sentence, because to me the same strategies would equate to the same style while different goals would equate to a different substance. To refute the first half, we just need to show that they differed in substance. To refute the second half, we just need to show they didn’t adopt the same strategies. I think showing that lots of scholars say there were fundamental differences within the Zionist mainstream is enough to make it untenable to make the claim for homogeneity in our voice. BobFromBrockley (talk) 05:39, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

The statement being contested is saying that the differences were primarily tactical or political, rather than fundamental differences of goals or strategy.

The quotes from Conforti and Taylor both say there was diversity in the movement. Conforti mentions differing "visions" of the future state. Neither are really talking about fundamental differences in goals or strategy. DMH223344 (talk) 07:00, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

So wouldn't it be better that different scholars take a range of positions on the degree to which there is a unitary, cohesive Zionism with shared goals and visions but differences in style and strategy (eg Gorny, Marsalha, Shimoni), or if Zionism is more heterogeneous and diverse (eg Shindler, Penslar, Conforti, Dubnov)? BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Calling zionism diverse is fine, but here we are interested in strategies and goals. DMH223344 (talk) 20:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

It’s in the middle of a paragraph summarising the Types of Zionism section, not a paragraph about strategies and goals. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

This issue seems to play out in a number of the disputes on the talk page. It would seem better to address for the article overall and decide what is best for the reader rather than focusing the phrasing of a particular sentence. fiveby(zero) 14:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree. It's two issues: (a) too many places in the article where one scholar or group of scholars' position is given the status of truth in our voice; and (b) a general tendency to favour homogeneity over diversity. It's there, for example, in the first sentence of the "Types of Zionism" section, where Gorny's homogeneity view is given in our voice (despite being criticised by Dubnow in the footnote) while the diversity view is attributed in the third sentence.

See previous discussions here, here and here. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:21, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I skimmed the dunbnov article and am actually now even more convinced that our characterization of zionism in this article is fair and balanced when it comes to emphasizing the zionist mainstream rather than getting lost in the fringe variations and groups that label themselves (or are labelled as) "zionist". The quote in the section you referenced is from footnote 16 which comes at the end of this sentence:

Once we discard the assumption one can speak of a Zionist “idea,” “doctrine” or “ideology” in the singular, we will be able to reassess Zionist thought in a new light and produce a more critically and historically grounded narrative.

and is followed by:

Most significantly, instead of searching in vain for “germs” or “sprouts” of this Zionist core-doctrine, we might offer an alternative view of the “family resemblance” of Zionist ideas, which (to allude to Wittgenstein’s metaphor) are connected by a series of overlapping similarities, and which show no one feature common to all.

So Dubnov is explicitly starting from the position that he is rejecting the idea of a common zionist idea. Such works are not BESTSOURCES for this article, especially not for determining weight and balance in the article structure and overall treatment of zionism. DMH223344 (talk) 17:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

my trims/additions

It is entirely possible that these may be my last edits to this page for a while; wanted to leave a few notes.

• Regarding Hebrew, I removed the part that had no citations. I also concentrated the sentence on the main point, but I think it's worth noting that being the liturgical language meant that Hebrew did have a vibrant medieval life as the language of some poems and prayers, but also as a kind of lingua franca among Jewish communities. I suspect that some of the sources talk about this a bit as it relates to Cultural Zionism, which is really still underweight in my view.
• I continue to feel the technicalities of early Zionist parliamentarianism and early Zionists' views of issues of territory, transfer, etc. is overweight versus some of the modern stuff.
• "Zionist historiography" is basically the national-conservative historiography that is going to be opposed in a lot of ways to either the New historiography (Morris, and Pappe) and the Arab historiography. "Traditional historiography" is also a thing. I restored the mentions of the forerunners and the proto-Zionists and medieval aliyah and messianism because it's critical to understanding the traditional historiography. It has less weight in Arab and New historiography because they're focused more on labor issues, population issues, but let's not forget there are also aspects that we left out, such as the malarial swamp and technological developments which relate to labor and are covered by Shapira in her other book, that are also part of the modern historiography. Also, this article should consider patterning itself after a general world or general political history of the region in some sense, to get an outside-of-the-box view rather than this inside baseball stuff. The article still reads a bit like a term paper.
• We had a list of best sources and there is still plenty that either is over/underweight or left out altogether or probably not necessary according to my read of most of those.
• A few things I removed were tagged with "page needed" for months, but restore them if you can check the page and find a close enough, but not too close, paraphrase. I failed to. I think there are still some issues of synthesis and kludgy frankensteining to fix.

Andre🚐 04:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Reverted because I don't agree with your assessment of UNDUE or that stuff was duplicative. TarnishedPath^talk 06:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Fine, on some of it, but this part: the decline of the status of religion in the Jewish community. What page of Yadgar is that summarizing? AFAIK, it's not a true statement that Zionism caused a decline in the status of religion of the Jewish community. Zionism was/is a fundamentally secular movement and a secularization of certain Jewish religious concepts that predate Zionism, but that isn't the same thing. Many Jewish communities are extremely religious, while other groups are less so, but in general, the religiosity of every group has been declining for a while - not just Jewish groups - and the Haskalah has more to do with the Jewish secularization, and is also a cause of/related to the growth of Zionism. Also, on another point, you restored a statement that had a citation needed tag, so you should provide a citation for it. And the ones with no pages numbered need page numbers. They've been tagged for months. Andre🚐 06:26, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

@DMH223344 reverted the stuff to do with page numbers. You'll need to ask them about that. I took the revert further. TarnishedPath^talk 06:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

There were page numbers needed in that text you reverted too, if I'm not mistaken. Such as the one I just quoted. Fine for DMH223344 to respond too of course, as most likely he was the one who originally added it anyway. [06:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)]

Here is what you restored:[3]

"The Zionist goal of reframing of Jewish identity in secular-nationalist terms meant primarily the decline of the status of religion in the Jewish community.Prominent Zionist thinkers frame this development as nationalism serving the same role as religion, functionally replacing it. Zionism sought to make Jewish ethnic-nationalism the distinctive trait of Jews rather than their commitment to Judaism. Zionism instead adopted a racial understanding of Jewish identity. Framed this way, Jewish identity is only secondarily a matter of tradition or culture. Zionist nationalism embraced pan-Germanic ideologies, which stressed the concept of das völk: people of shared ancestry should pursue separation and establish a unified state. Zionist thinkers view the movement as a "revolt against a tradition of many centuries" of living parasitically at the margins of Western society. Indeed, Zionism was uncomfortable with the term "Jewish," associating it with passivity, spirituality and the stain of "galut". Instead, Zionist thinkers preferred the term "Hebrew" to describe their identity. In Zionist thought, the new Jew would be productive and work the land, in contrast to the diaspora Jew. Zionism linked the term "Jewish" with negative characteristics prevalent in European anti-Semitic stereotypes, which Zionists believed could be remedied only through sovereignty."

Andre🚐 06:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong but your edits to do with page numbers were at Special:Diff/1269740494 and Special:Diff/1269740570, those were reverted by DMH223344 at Special:Diff/1269747214. The fact that I reverted back to an edition without the page numbers is immaterial as the diff of the article I reverted from didn't have the page numbers. In any case I would have been restricted from overriding DMH223344's reverts because of the consensus required restriction. The only option available to me if I wanted to over-ride your edits, without reinstating what DMH223344 reverted, was to rollback to a time before you had made any adjustment that I disagreed with and which DMH223344 had reverted. TarnishedPath^talk 07:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I believe you must be incorrect, because I just pasted the text and that text is restored in your diff. If you agree with removing that text, you may do so. Andre🚐 08:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't think a page needed tag is a good reason for removal. If there's doubt about the source, maybe a verify quote tag is better. I see page needed as more of a technical improvement issue. My main issue is that some of these claims are the opinions or interpretations of scholars that we should be attributing, rather than the scholarly consensus, so most of the deleted material doesn't look strong enough to keep in a bloated article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 19:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

References

Ethnocultural nationalism

I have long been not a fan of the opening sentence use of "ethnocultural nationalist", currently citing one source, the Israeli philosopher Chaim Gans. Looking back over the talk archive, I don't see the establishment of consensus for this. It's been disputed by multiple editors, and supported by few. (Open to being corrected on that if I missed a robust RfC or similar strong establishment of consensus.) I've looked in Google Scholar to identify if it's a term used widely about Zionism in the academic literature, and it seems to me clear it isn't. It's a term used by Gans, but by almost nobody else that I can see. Open to persuasion if I'm missing something, but if my reading is right, it's not something we should say in our voice and certainly not in the opening sentence.

Even if we agree with Gans that it is an ethnocultural nationalism not a civic nationalism, we still shouldn't use it in our voice in the lead, given that his argument that it is one notes that Herzl and Pinsker were civic not ethnocultural nationalists; that it should specifically be understood as representing a sub-species: a "liberal ethnocultural nationalism"; that many have tried to generate a civic rather than ethnocultural Zionism; and that he is disagreeing with other scholars who don't share his analysis.

Conforti argues that Zionism is a clear case of ethnocultural nationalism, but with paradoxical civic elements: This research concludes that the state of Israel, which developed from a nationalist ethnic-cultural movement, integrated within it ethnic values as well as Western civic values. The founders of the central wing of the movement all aspired to create a Jewish national state that upheld these values... Since Zionism is a clear example of an ethnic national movement, scholars usually tend to ignore its civic components.... I will argue that the two characteristics, civic and ethnic, were continuously present in mainstream Zionist thought and activities from the 1880s to 1948. The primary aim of the 'Zionist consensus' was to create a Western Jewish nation-state, in contrast to two alternatives that were proposed by marginal movements within Zionism: a bi-national state or the messianic Israelite kingdom.

Michael Berkowitz makes the same argument: that Zionism, like Czech nationalism, contains elements of both ethnocultural and civic. BobFromBrockley (talk) 19:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

We've had discussions about NPOV previously and there has been consensus against adding such tags. Please don't do it. TarnishedPath^talk 14:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Recently a number of very active editors have been indefinitely topic banned for reasons including pushing a particular POV. I think it's clear that they had an impact on each one of these consensus decisions, which seems to at least open up the question if we should ask again if a NPOV is appropriate?

Saying that, this is now my option of last resort. In a new environment here, I'd prefer if we can just work together to fix the page without using the tag. Bob drobbs (talk) 17:00, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Describing Zionism as civic nationalism is absolutely a fringe standpoint. Maybe it has "elements" of it, (wouldn't many other forms of ethnic nationalism also have elements of civic nationalism?) but it certainly cannot be characterized as civic nationalism (and is for the most part not characterized as such in RS).

Quickly flipping through my library:

Shimoni: It [this book] has identified Zionism as manifestly a case of ethnic nationalism

Masalha (doesnt use the term, but still describes it throughout his work): Zionist nationalism adopted German völkisch theory: people of common descent should seek separation and form one common state. But such ideas of racial nationalism ran counter to those held by liberal nationalism in Western Europe, whereby equal citizenship regardless of religion or ethnicity — not ‘common descent’ — determined the national character of the state.

Sand: Zionism from its inception was an ethnocentric nationalist movement

Shafir: Zionism was founded, like other types of nationalism, on a theory of political legitimacy, which requires that ethnic boundaries should not cross political ones."

Shapira (also does not use the same term, but describes it and uses a similar term): The concept of nation that originated in the French Revolution was not ser­ viceable as a basis for a Jewish conception of nationhood. A stateless people, the Jews could not embrace the idea of citizenship based on the notion of a state. Iron­ ically, it was the Romantic-exclusivistic brand of nationalism (whose prescriptions meant that the Jews could never be an integral part of the organic nation) that con­ tained certain ideas able to function as a basis for an elaborated notion of a Jewish nation and national movement.

Stanislawski: Indeed, in most ways Zionism followed the common pattern of modern nationalist movements, which began in the early nineteenth century in Western and Central Europe and then spread into Eastern Europe in the middle and late nineteenth century. These began as ideologies of cultural renaissance among small groups of intellectuals and writers who were heavily influenced by the ideas of philosophers such as J. G. Herder and J. G. Fichte, who argued that humanity was fundamentally divided into distinct “nations,” each of which had a unique history, culture, and “national spirit” ( Volksgeist in German). Thus, the word “nation,” which previously had a very loose meaning that could apply to essentially any group of people united by some common bond (one spoke, for example, of the “nation of students”), now acquired a highly specific and exclusive meaning: every person’s primary identification was as a member of his or her nation, rather than other forms of self-definition or loyalty—religious, regional, local, even familial. DMH223344 (talk) 16:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Some persuasive quotes there, but not all unproblematic.

• First, I'd discount Sand as very fringe and contrarian, not an instance of the academic best source, let alone the consensus view (See, for example, Shapira's response. Among other things, she points out that Sand reject's Smith's theory, which includes the very distinction between ethnic and civic nationalism)
• Shimoni and Marsalha do indeed argue strongly (and often, to me, compellingly) that Zionism as a movement and labour Zionism in particular was an "eastern European" ethnic nationalism, at least in the late 19th/early 20th centuries. But this is their position, not the settled view of scholars in general that we can relay in our own voice.
• Shafir is quoting Gellner about all nationalisms: his position is that all nationalisms are essentially ethnocultural, in which case it's a redundancy. In fact Shafir immediately goes on to problematise the categorisation: Zionism was founded, like other types of nationalism, on a 'theory of political legitimacy, which requires that ethnic boundaries should not cross political ones." The conditions under which nation-states come into existence do, however, call for strikingly different methods of mobilization, which accordingly generate distinct societies. To which of these configurations does Zionism belong? Obviously, Zionism cannot be classed with the English or French cases. [The French case being allegedly paradigmatic of "civic" nationalism]... Faced with the multi-ethnic Habsburg, Romanov, and Ottoman Empires, which impeded modern state formation, the Eastern European method23 did require nationalist ideological mobilization for secession. This model is applicable to Israeli state and nation formation, but only in part. At the outset, Zionism was a variety of Eastern European nationalism, that is, an ethnic movement in search of a state. But at the other end of the journey it may be seen more fruitfully as a late instance of European overseas expansion, which had been taking place from the sixteenth through the early twentieth centuries.
• I haven't got Shapira to hand so maybe she works for "ethnocultural" although she doesn't use the term. On the basis of this quote alone it feels a slight stretch. I note she uses the term "ethnic" nine times in her book, and "ethnocultural" not once.
• Stanislawki is simply saying that Zionism is a form of nationalism. In most ways, he says, it followed the pattern of nationalism in general. The fact he uses the word "ethnic" just five times in his whole book and "ethnocultural" not once (versus "nationalism/t" some 50+ times) shows how central this is to his understanding, and why it shouldn't be in the first sentence.

BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:10, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Describing Zionism as civic nationalism is absolutely a fringe standpoint. That's not Conforti's view. He says This article analyses the ethnic and civic components of the early Zionist movement. The debate over whether Zionism was an Eastern-ethnic nationalist movement or a Western-civic movement began with the birth of Zionism.... The debate over the character of Jewish nationalism – ethnic or civic – continues to engage researchers and remains a topic of public debate in Israel even today. As this article demonstrates, the debate between ‘Eastern’ and ‘Western’ Zionism has its foundations in the origins of the Zionist movement. His conclusion: Ahad Ha’am’s vision was not entirely particularistic and ethnic, nor was Herzl’s vision entirely universalistic and civic. Both visions rest on the middle ground between East and West, ethnic and civic Jewish nationalism. The civic model per se cannot fully explain Jewish nationalism, which stemmed from the ethnic consciousness of the Jewish people and not from a territorial basis. On the other hand, from the outset Zionism adopted Western civic political thought, which intensified }through continued cooperation between the Zionist movement and the Jewish communities in the West... The current debate over the desired character of Israeli democracy – ethnic or civic – is based on questions raised by the classic Zionist thinkers. The approach of researchers who consider that Zionism expressed ethnic aspirations only and was devoid of civic elements is based on the belief that Israel as a civic state was preferable to Israel as a nation-state (Sand 2008: 277–92; Wassermann 2007: 377–88). But in classical Zionism, as we have seen, both elements, ethnic and civic, operated in parallel on the path to fulfillment of the Zionist project.[4] BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

In that article conforti acknowledges that the mainstream view is to characterize Zionism as an ethnic nationalism. DMH223344 (talk) 17:41, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Where does he say that? BobFromBrockley (talk) 05:26, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Conforti is arguing in contrast to Kohn's characterization of Zionism which is the mainstream characterization. DMH223344 (talk) 06:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Kohn's view set the paradigm for nationalism studies in the 1940s (and shaped Gellner), but has been sharply under attack by people like AD Smith on one hand, who argue that all nationalisms are ethnic, and by people like Brubaker on the other who argue that Kuhn's dichotomy is a false one. Smith's and Brubaker positions have now overtaken Kohn's as the dominant ones in nationalism studies. Conforti: Kohn’s dichotomy is important as an analytical tool in research on nationalism; however, as many critics have noted, we cannot clearly separate between ethnic and civic, Eastern and Western models, in all nationalist movements (Brown 1999; Kuzio 2002; Kymlicka 1995; Smith 1998: 210–13; Yack 1996)... In the modern discourse, some follow Kohn’s approach and view Jewish nationalism as a development of ethnic nationalism (Dahan and Wassermann 2006: 11–28; Sand 2008; Wassermann 2007), but others believe that the Jewish nation-state follows the principles of Western liberalism (Yakobson and Rubinstein 2009). As Conforti notes, all of these positions are positions in a contentious terrain of scholarly debate, on which we should not rule in our voice, least of all in the first sentence of the lead. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:19, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

The emphasis on "others" here is key, especially noting that Conforti cites a single publication for this view.

As for Smith, Shimoni, cited above, heavily relies on Smith in his coverage of Zionist ideology and explicitly characterizes Zionism as an ethnic nationalism. DMH223344 (talk) 19:42, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes as I said, Smith departs from Kohn in basically seeing all nationalisms as ethnic, making the prefix redundant. There are three major positions on this, and our first sentence privileges Kohn’s as the truth. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:23, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

So you just want to call it "nationalism" in the first sentence instead of "ethnocultural"? I never liked the use of the term "ethnocultural" here. DMH223344 (talk) 18:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, just nationalism is cleaner and totally non-controversial BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

The problematisation of the ethnic/civic dichotomy is an important one, and tbh that swings me a little against using the "ethnocultural". That said, it seems ridiculous to me that anyone can argue the ethnic components of Zionist rhetoric are balanced by the civic (especially given the Israeli state's treatment of Palestinians in Israel, which - by no definition - can be considered to embody "traditional liberal values of freedom, tolerance, equality, and individual rights" that civic nationalism supposedly prioritises), but I guess we have to yield to sources.

Like Conforti, Uri Ram offers a brief picture of the appropriateness of such characterisations on Zionism at the beginning of this: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/review-of-middle-east-studies/article/abs/critical-studies-of-ethnic-nationalism-in-israel/FACAED46EAC692C53802EF20AFAF162F

I wonder whether we can better reflect this tension somewhere in the article itself rather than getting bogged down in the lede. There's a bit about it here,[5] but it's a little unsatisfactory at the moment. Yr Enw (talk) 08:01, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree and definitely wouldn't argue that Zionism is widely seen as a form of civic nationalism. The issue for me is this simplification in our voice in the first sentence of the lead, rather than more carefully phrased with attribution in the body. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:09, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

So, for those of us discussing this (@Bobfrombrockley:, @DMH223344:, @Yr Enw:, and myself) we seem to generally agree that "nationalism" without qualifier can work for the purpose of the lede (discussion around the nature of that nationalism can be provided within the article body). So, if no one objects, I will implement my suggestion later today. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 11:54, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Fine by me Yr Enw (talk) 16:36, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Cdjp1. That’s good. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:23, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Only going off of the sections highlighted to this time in the discussion, for the pittance my view is worth, I would suggest moving back to the note we had previously in the article, where we describe it as a "nationalism", and then in a footnote point to ethnic/ethnocultural assessment, as can be seen in 'fn1' here. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 14:08, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

This might be a good idea. Any idea why it was changed? Yr Enw (talk) 18:26, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Done in this edit with no explainer, and is the only edit to this article or talk page by the editor. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 20:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Perfect BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:25, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

I suggest this is discussed more widely before implementation, perhaps in an RfC?

This one adjective is arguably the central point of the whole topic of Zionism; if it wasn’t ethnocultural, but instead civic nationalism like in many Western countries, there would have been no conflict with the Palestinians.

Onceinawhile (talk) 11:28, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree. The term ethnocultural nationalism/nationalist has been mentioned in discussions here, here, here, here, here, here and here (that I could find quickly), and no consensus for change has emerged. If those wanting change wish to continue pursuing this then an RFC might be a good idea. TarnishedPath^talk 11:59, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Helpful to have the links, although I can’t see the specific categorisation of nationalism is necessarily discussed there? I think this discussion needs to remain source-focussed. Yr Enw (talk) 19:44, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Putting those in chronological order:

Discussion 1 (September): one editor each for the following three first sentences:

• Zionism is the nationalist movement that emerged in its modern form during the late 19th century with the goal of establishing a Jewish state in the historical region of Palestine, known as the Holy Land or the biblical Eretz Yisrael. This editor later added I believe "ethno-nationalism" […] is what critics accuse it of, namely, ethnocentrism. "ethno-cultural nationalism" is less clear though perhaps more technically accurate.
• Zionism[a] is an ethno-cultural nationalist[1][fn 1] movement that emerged in Europe in the late 19th century and aimed for the establishment of a Jewish state through the colonization of a land outside Europe.
• Zionism is a complex and controversial ideology, with supporters viewing it as a national liberation movement for self-determination (this is was?) and opponents criticizing it as a form of ethnonationalism pursuing colonial settlement and expropriation. This editor later swung behind ethnocultural, saying Conforti, Gans and Medding support it.
• Zionism is an ethno-cultural nationalist movement that emerged in Europe in the late 19th century and aimed for the establishment of a Jewish state through the colonization of a specific land. This editor later said: I don't have strong feelings about it. 1) Ethnic nationalist 2) Ethnonationalist 3) Cultural nationalist 4) Nationalist.
• A fifth and sixth editor said: Anybody besides me think that "ethno-cultural nationalist movement", while accurate, is WP:JARGON that will be completely meaningless to 99% of readers? And Ethno-cultural nationalism' is pointless. Ethnonationalism covers things like the defense of 'a national culture' against minorities, immigrant or other, who are perceived as not (as they frequently are) assimilating, but as bearers of an alien culture and identity. The other reason is that the compression of three things, which are often fluid, excludes religion, as is descriptions of 'ethno-religious' statehood.
• Two editors (including me) then argue for just “nationalist”, no ethno.

In other words, six against ethno and two for it, with one of each swapping in opposite directions.

Discussion 2 does not actually have any comments about that word.

Discussion 3:

• The fourth editor above reformulated the sentence as Zionism is an ethnocultural nationalist movement that emerged in Europe in the late 19th century and aimed for the establishment of a Jewish state through the colonization of Palestine, a region corresponding to the Land of Israel in Judaism, and of central importance in Jewish history.
• The fifth editor responded with Zionism is an ethnic nationalist movement for the establishment of a Jewish state in the Land of Israel, the ancient Jewish homeland in Palestine.

Discussion 4 (October) a non-ECR ed proposes an alternative version of the first sentence, but leaves ethnocultural intact. Nobody responds. Discussion 5 similar, with pushback that doesn’t mention “ethnocultural”. Discussion 7: same as 4.

Discussion 6 (November) brings two new editors who propose alternative versions of the first sentence, but both leave ethnocultural intact, implying default consensus has now formed despite almost nobody advocating for it.

Concluding from this: consensus was achieved by default, in that changes were reverted to a stable version that included these words and in suggesting changes most editors accepted the majority of the stable version. BUT there has been almost no discussion of the word "ethnocultural", and when it was discussed more editors opposed it than argued for it. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:08, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

but instead civic nationalism like in many Western countries, there would have been no conflict with the Palestinians. is not right whatsoever, as civic nationalisms can (and do) still racialise those outside of the concept of the civic national, and so as policies of what is required to become a national within the nation can work to 'de-racialise' others, which may include removing the identifiers that mark them as members of a specific group. One example to this is the civic nationalism that occurs within France expressed through laïcité.

That aside, a drive by edit that changed a much longer standing status quo, is flimsy ground to determine a "new" status quo. @Bobfrombrockley:, @DMH223344:, @Yr Enw:, looks like there is demand for any change here to go through an RFC. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 12:46, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

This comment mixes up what civic nationalism accepts for its citizens vs. for its government. Despite a commitment to secular government, French nationalism has not suffered from 100 years of conflict like Zionism has. That is because French nationalism (and other civic nationalism) does not propose the subordination of one people to another. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:14, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

It’s utterly irrelevant what we as editors deem civic nationalism to be (although the French example is quite unbelievable in light of the French civil war, not to mention French colonialism!!) when the discussion is how we should describe Zionism in this article, and thus it’s for us to follow the reliable sources. Yr Enw (talk) 19:17, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

I highlighted a specific example in France that falls under a description of "civic nationalism" to show how even in cases of such civic nationalism othering and racialisation still occur and discontent and conflict can rise from it. The fact that most nationalism in Western countries are in fact racial/ethnic/ethnocultural just further highlights the ridiculousness of pointing to Western countries as bastions of civic nationalism. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 19:43, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree with you. It was @Onceinawhile’s comment I found astounding Yr Enw (talk) 19:45, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Well, we all appear to be talking past each other. The idea that someone could say that "most nationalism in Western countries are in fact racial/ethnic/ethnocultural" is astounding to me. And the French colonialism point misses the distinction between empire and nation, although the history of French Algeria poses a complex example between those two.

One can reasonably argue that there is a spectrum of ethnic-cultural-civic nationalism. American nationalism, the archetype of civic nationalism, today has many adherents to a belief in cultural nationalism, or even ethnic nationalism. But the way the American state apparatus works in practice, even with the increasing sidelining of liberalism, is still civic nationalism. The same remains true in the majority of Western countries.

Zionism on the other hand does not operate on such a spectrum. It is definitionally ethnic, both in its founding documents and in practice throughout its history. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:08, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

This discussion is peripheral to the matter in question, except that my own editorial view is that the problematisation of the civic-ethnic binary, in the absence of substantial sources backing up the ethnic definition (which, again, I’m not actually disagreeing with), is strong enough to support the proposed change. Yr Enw (talk) 07:34, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Onceinawhile, your opinion is of course perfectly valid (and an extreme version of the position taken by some key scholars) but, as I've shown above, many key scholars disagree with you, arguing either that Zionism includes a mix of ethnic and civic elements (or is primarily ethnic, with some civic elements) or that the dichotomy is false so the qualifier is meaningless, or that all nationalisms are ethnic so the qualifier is redundant. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:12, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

An RFC is reasonable, maybe with the three options:

1. keep it as is
2. remove "ethnocultural" and add Cdjp1's footnote
3. just remove "ethnocultural" so that it just says "nationalist"

DMH223344 (talk) 17:36, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Two more options that have been debated in these archives over time:

1. Ethnic nationalism
2. Racial nationalism

Onceinawhile (talk) 18:10, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, we have some discussion of "ethnic nationalism" above, but none about "racial nationalism." Could you provide us with sources that use this term or describe zionism as a racial nationalism without using the term exactly? DMH223344 (talk) 18:13, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Wider context is available at Racial conceptions of Jewish identity in Zionism. Examples include:

• Loeffler, James (2018-01-01). Rooted Cosmopolitans. New Haven (Conn.): Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-21724-7. Ennals was horrified by the question. He replied swiftly that he did not know who was Jewish and would not ask. Such a practice would be anathema to the principles of the organization. Yet he went on to specify his reasoning: "I think it is absolutely essential that a distinction be made between Jews, Zionists, and Israelis." It did not apparently occur to him that breaking out "Zionists" as a separate category reinforced the invidious slur overtaking the human rights imagination in the early 1970s. Judaism was a religion; Israel, a state. Zionism was a dangerous racial nationalism, the very antithesis of human rights.
• Legun, Katharine; Keller, Julie C.; Carolan, Michael; Bell, Michael M. (2020-12-03). The Cambridge Handbook of Environmental Sociology: Volume 1. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-108-63832-6. The irony of this project was that while it evolved directly out of the need to ensure the survival of Jewish people against racist policies and practices by other states, Zionism itself was a form of racial nationalism and therefore ran counter to the ideals of liberal nationalism in western Europe in which full citizenship was to be enjoyed regardless of race, ethnicity, or religion, and therefore not based on "common descent."

Onceinawhile (talk) 20:41, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

The first source is a paraphrase of a non-expert politician; the second source is a from a textbook about a different topic that seems to contain a total of one mention of Zionism. Nobody has previously proposed "racial nationalism" in the lead and it's not likely to get new support, so I think we can exclude this from the choices. "Ethnic nationalism" makes more sense, as this is the far more common term than "ethnocultural nationalism". BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:16, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

It is not "my" footnote. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 19:37, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Language in the lead "As fews as possible" vs "majority"

The lead of the article used to speak about Zionists wanting a "majority". This idea seems reflected in the body as there is an entire sub-section about it. Here's a few sources which reflect that view:

Gorney 1987 - "desire for a Jewish majority was the key issue in the implementation of Zionism"

Morris 1999 - "clear to the Zionists that a Jewish state would be impossible without a Jewish majority"

In August an editor who has now been topic banned made a change which replaced "majority" with "as few Palestinians as possible." Issues with this change were discussed in great length here[6] To summarize a few problems, it included putting forth opinions as if they were fact, cherry picking sources to push a particular POV, and even cherry picking sections of a source ignoring other parts of the same source which disputed that POV.

An RFC asking if the text should be removed for POV violations was rejected. However, within the comments there seemed to be a healthy discussion about improvements to the text, and I think that's a very reasonable alternative to removal.

Zero proposed this version and it seemed to have significant support:

A) 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.

Pharos iterated on it and this version also had some support:

B) 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, and, those in leadership generally advocated, the voluntary or forced removal of many Palestinian Arabs.

I personally find the adjectives "massive" and "many" to be vague and non-encyclopedic, resulting in this version:

C) 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 Jewish immigration, and, those in leadership generally advocated, the voluntary or forced removal of Palestinian Arabs.

Thoughts about replacing the sentence in the lead and the body with options A, B, or C or some other refinement of any of these options? Bob drobbs (talk) 17:26, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Personally I’d strongly support any of them (preference C > B > A). More NPOV, more faithful to majority of sources. BobFromBrockley (talk) 19:40, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

No good reason to revisit this point after having just closed it this month after a long discussion. My count shows 2 of the editors who had given a "no" response to the RFC have been topic banned, and 1 editor who had given a "yes" response has also been topic banned. The RFC closer noted 18 "no" responses and 7 "yes" responses. Accordingly, there's no indication that consensus has changed since the RFC was closed. DMH223344 (talk) 21:03, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Consensus was that it shouldn't be removed. Whether it can be improved is a different topic. There was discussion in the close about the idea of a followup RFC:

"Well, the additional sources were not considered, only in passing because they were introduced later. And there was some delayed recognition that the RFC might have been a little ambitious in trying to do away with the entire sentence and editors were responding to that. Anyway, speaking for myself only, I have no objection to another RFC with a different idea."

But is that necessary? Or can we just have a conversation in here and see if we can get agreement on an improved version of the text? Bob drobbs (talk) 21:37, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

If you want to challenge the RFC close take it to WP:AN after discussing it with the closer. TarnishedPath^talk 23:47, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

My impression is that editors did not discuss a better text because they have exhaustively discussed the sources and were firmly unconvinced to change anything. Kenneth Kho (talk) 20:05, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

This seems more encyclopaedic. Slightly prefer C to B and A. Alaexis_¿question? 21:16, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

C seems to be the best/most neutral lead. Perhaps there should be a mention that the idea of forced transfer was most popular among the right-wing Zionist minority rather than the leftist/socialist Zionist majority. Just my two cents though.Pyramids09 (talk) 23:33, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

This was settled at Special:PermanentLink/1267363651#RFC about a recently added claim about Zionism only this month. Relitigating the RFC not less than a month after it was closed is disruptive. TarnishedPath^talk 23:41, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

+1 M.Bitton (talk) 23:48, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not challenging the results of the RFC. The RFC was had some issues and it was rejected. But "remove for POV violations" and "improve the text" are not the same thing, right?

And I'll ask again -- is there any need for a followup RFC if we can collaboratively work in here on ways to make it better? Bob drobbs (talk) 02:01, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

From the close:

Anyway, to cut to the chase, there is a consensus that the sentence referenced in the OP is compliant with NPOV and should remain in "the lead and the body".

I take that to mean in its current form as the form was discussed heavily in the RFC. So yes I would suggest that another RFC would be required to change the wording, however I would also suggest that running another RFC less than a month after the previous one was concluded in order to relitigate it would be highly disruptive. TarnishedPath^talk 03:44, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

I disagree with that assessment. There were a variety of voices opposing the rfc who expressed issues with a badly formed RFC and people who thought the text should be changed but not removed. The close ends with the simple fact that "consensus changes" and that RFC was no more than a snapshot in time. We hopefully have a more constructive environment in here after a number of loud voices pushing certain agendas were topic-banned. I'm not in any rush and I think we can take some time trying to get consensus, but if we can get consensus on an improved version in here, then I personally don't see any need for another RFC. Bob drobbs (talk) 21:44, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

You're entirely correct that consensus can change, however relitigating the issue less than a month after the RFC on the question is disruptive. Even though some editors expressed the view that the wording should be changed, those editors were in a clear minority (7 against 18) and consensus was established for keeping the current wording which you explicitly used in the RFC question. The RFC close states that there is consensus that the sentence "should remain". So no, you won't get consensus in this discussion, which only has 8 editors involved, because it has already been established in the RFC which had 25 editors involved. If the consensus of that RFC is to change then a new RFC would need to be conducted. TarnishedPath^talk 01:36, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

What do you mean when you say the previous RfC "was rejected"? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:24, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Could you please explain what you mean by this, @Bob drobbs? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 11:45, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Support C ꧁Zanahary꧂ 15:13, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose An editor aptly described the RfC as directed principally at excising the phrase "as few Arabs as possible". This has been rejected by a clear consensus last month with voluminous assessment of the sources. Kenneth Kho (talk) 19:21, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Right, the discussion around the RFC was almost entirely (entirely?) focused on the "as few Arabs as possible" portion of the sentence. DMH223344 (talk) 19:30, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree that this whole discussion is mooted by the recent RFC, which found a clear consensus for the current language. Loki (talk) 21:15, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

We can haggle semantics over "inclusion" vs "improvement", but all three proposed options appear to be from the RfC we've already closed, and, crucially, don't improve the existing text, but change it - they break from consensus that Zionists wanted to create a Jewish state in Palestine with as much land, as many Jews, and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible. is the wording we're going with and introduce the vague notion that this was "generally advocated" for, or somehow optional. But we just had this discussion, and that RfC is closed. Re-litigating this so soon is disruptive and smacks of WP:LIKECONTENT. Smallangryplanet (talk) 21:41, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

• I was a bit surprised to find that the editor who initiated this discussion to change the sentence is also the same editor who initiated the November 2024 RfC to remove the same sentence. starship.paint (talk / cont) 06:58, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Starship.paint as was I when I looked up the RFC, earlier today, to check on some details. You'd think the editor who started the RFC would be quite aware of the question they posed in the RFC and how it was closed. To then attempt to relitigate it less than a month of after the RFC close would be considered to be a behavioural issue by many editors. TarnishedPath^talk 07:14, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

  What all of you editors complaining about the timing seem to be neglecting is that the previous RFC closed with a number of the editors suggesting that another, narrower, RFC be opened [7]

  Selfstudier: I do think we should have another RFC that addresses only the "few Arabs as possible " thing, which is what those additional sources were aimed at. Those sources (which include sources not previously considered/discussed have not been subjected to anything more than a cursory scrutiny because of that and because they were introduced well after this RFC started

  DancingOwl: I agree that this would be the best course of action

  So instead of being disruptive, my actions here seem to be pretty much in line with these suggestions. -2 cents Bob drobbs (talk) 09:14, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

  2 editors is small amount out of the 25 editors that the closer considered. If those editors !votes were taken out (1 each side) the RFC would be 17 editors for maintaining the current wording and 6 against. Still a clear consensus. If you have issue with the closer not taking into account those two editors comments then you can always take it up with them on their talk and then to WP:AN if you're still not satisfied. TarnishedPath^talk 09:31, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

• Comment - I have no view on the wording, but per WP:GRAVEDANCING (an essay, my essay indeed, but at least something written before-hand) and simple logic, the banning of editors does not automatically moot the result of an RFC. FOARP (talk) 11:09, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

SOURCES:

Here are a number of sources I think support the proposed update of the text. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 09:44, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Manna and others should be categorized as opinion instead of fact, but even he disputes the claim Zionists sought to get rid of as many Palestinians arabs as possible:

...the history of the Palestinians who remained in the Galilee both attests to the existence of a high-level policy of ethnic cleansing at times and refutes that policy at other times. Those cases which are not consistent with the general policy are due to causes connected to geography and the differential treat- ment of non-Muslims. The Druze were treated in a different way from the general Arab population. Christians were generally treated more leniently and with some sensitivity

Enem, who is on the list of the proposed best sources, casts doubt on the idea that all Zionists always wanted as few Palestinians as possible:

To be sure, until the late 1930s most Zionists would have been delighted with any majority, no matter how slim

Amar-Dahl, also on the list of the best sources, uses the language "majority":

The Zionist discourse in the Yishuv concerning this point was characterized by a wide gulf between the objective demographical situation as it existed up to the state’s establishment, and the political goal of a state with a Jewish majority as it was championed by most Zionist parties.

Dieckhoff, also from the list of best sources, again speaks about Zionists wanting a "majority"

'...Herzl's original political aim. He wished to build a state where Jews would be in the majority and thus be politically dominant'

Morris speaks about Zionists seeking to base relations on mutual respect:

The [Zionist] settlers sought to base their relations on their neighbors on mutual respect ... In the early years of settlement, tensions often stemmed from mutual ignorance of one another's customs and languages. Some Zionist leaders called on settlers to learn local customs and adopt Arab ways

Shapira, from the list of best sources, completely dispels the idea that all Zionists or even all Zionist leaders shared a unified goal of taking as much land and displacing as many Palestinians as possible:

Ahad Ha'am represented spiritual Zionism, whose perspective was diametrically opposed to Herzl's. ... He did not see Palestine as providing a solution for millions; he thought Jews should immigrate to the United States. What the Zionist movement could and should do, he maintained, was establish as "spiritual center in Palestine ... Ahad Ha'am censured the Jewish farmers for their mistreatment of their Arab workers (1891). Yitzhak Epstein, in his article "A Hidden Question," cautioned against the dispossession of Arab tenant farmers that followed Jewish settlement, even when they were paid generous compensation (1907). Rabbi Benjamin (Yehoshua Redler-Feldman) proposed fostering and advancing the Arab population together with the Jews as a way of bringing the two peoples together (19II).

Laquer, also from the list of best sources speaks about Zionists wanted peaceful coexistence:

The Russian Zionists in their writings in the early 1880s expressed confidence that Jews and Arabs could live together in peace. ... In Herzl’s mind the Arabs certainly did not figure prominently, though he did not ignore them altogether. He met individual Arabs and corresponded with a few of them. He was aware of the rising national movement in Egypt and on various occasions stressed the close relationship between Jews and Muslims.'

More sources:

The work below done by DancingOwl [8]

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 09:44, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

---

"In order to get a clear understanding of what the sources are REALLY saying, one needs to look at the full quotes - I've prepared a table that does exactly that, while focusing on the two more controversial claims - "as many Jews" and "as few Arabs".

In the second part of the table I also put several additional sources that offer a significantly different perspective on those claims:

Work done by DancingOwl

Source full quote time "as many Jews" "as few Arabs" Manna 2022 P.2; ” It is clear that “non-expulsion” in northern Palestine was not arbitrary, but was the result of high-level orders and policy on the part of the Israeli leadership. Saying this does not contradict the principal objective of the Zionist leadership to keep as few Arabs as possible in the Jewish state, since the exception due to special reasons and circumstances proves the rule.” P.4 “That is what also happened in the 1948 war, when it became clear that the objective that enjoyed the unanimous support of Zionists of all inclinations was to establish a Jewish state with the smallest possible number of Palestinians.” p. 33 "To spur Palestinians to leave their cities and villages was an objective that the Jewish side implemented as part of the Zionist operation to uproot and occupy. The Zionists had two cherished objectives: fewer Arabs in the country and more land in the hands of the settlers" 1947-1948 not mentioned Y Khalidi 2020 p. 75: "The Nakba represented a watershed in the history of Palestine and the Middle East. It transformed most of Palestine from what it had been for well over a millennium—a majority Arab country—into a new state that had a substantial Jewish majority. This transformation was the result of two processes: the systematic ethnic cleansing of the Arab-inhabited areas of the country seized during the war; and the theft of Palestinian land and property left behind by the refugees as well as much of that owned by those Arabs who remained in Israel. There would have been no other way to achieve a Jewish majority, the explicit aim of political Zionism from its inception. Nor would it have been possible to dominate the country without the seizures of land." "from its inception" refers to the goal of achieving Jewish majority "ethnic cleansing" refers to 1948 N the goal is formulated as "(substantial) Jewish majority", not "as many Jews" N no mention of "as few Arabs" (deducing it from "ethnic cleansing" is SYNTH) Slater 2020 p. 49 "There were three arguments for the moral acceptability of some form of transfer. The main one—certainly for the Zionists but not only for them—was the alleged necessity of establishing a secure and stable Jewish state in as much of Palestine as was feasible, which was understood to require a large Jewish majority."), p. 81 ("From the outset of the Zionist movement all the major leaders wanted as few Arabs as possible in a Jewish state") From the outset of the Zionist movement N the goal is formulated as "large Jewish majority", not "as many Jews" Y Segev 2019 p. 418, "the Zionist dream from the start—maximum territory, minimum Arabs"; "from the start" not mentioned Y Cohen 2017 P. 75: “Some historians, such as Ilan Pappé (2006) and Nur Masalha (1992), claim that the Zionist movement from the very beginning sought to expel Arabs from the Jewish national homeland, and that in 1948 the Jewish military forces followed an existing plan to implement this goal. One source that Pappé (2006) uses to support this argument in his book is a widespread survey of the Arab villages undertaken by the Haganah’s intelligence services between the end of the 1930s and the eve of the 1948 war. This does not, in my opinion, constitute an irrefutable evidence base, as armies are known to prepare contingency plans for worst-case scenarios without intending to implement them unless forced to do so. I would argue that the Zionist leadership had considered several possible scenarios and that an all-out war was only one of them." P. 77: “In my view, it would not be unrealistic to deduce that the Zionist leadership prepared itself – among other options – for a peaceful implementation of the partition resolution and for the existence of a significant Arab minority in the Jewish state. Moreover, in such a scenario, there were elements within the Jewish leadership who pushed toward improving Arab conditions and Arab– Jewish relations in the new state. Such an analysis would become even more plausible if we consider a parallel committee that was established by the Yishuv leadership to deal with the Jewish settlements situated in areas designated to be incorporated into the Arab state. This view should not come as a surprise, as it goes hand in hand with what remained official Zionist policy for years. In 1943, i.e., after the Jewish Agency had adopted the idea of a Jewish state as an urgent political demand, Ben-Gurion said that the Zionist aspiration was to reach a Jewish majority in the Land of Israel in the shortest period possible." p. 78 "One should bear in mind, though, that the democratic, equality-oriented, inclusive position was not the only one considered by Zionist activists. As was suggested by Masalha (1992), Morris (1987), and other scholars, many preferred a state without Arabs or with as small a minority as possible, and plans for population transfers were considered by Zionist leaders and activists for years. However, in the post–World War II political context, the Zionist leadership was prepared to accept (though not happily) a large Arab minority in the Jewish state and its declared position was that it would enjoy civil equality, collective rights, and the allocation of resources as outlined by the UN Partition Plan" "from the very beginning" and "for years" are not Cohen's own claims, but are attributed to Pappe/Masalha/Morris, and most of the article is dedicated to critically assessing their claims N the goal is formulated as "Jewish majority", not "as many Jews" ? Cohen disputes Pappe/Masalha claims about existing plan to expel. He does recognize the fact the having a large Arab minority was not "ideal', as far as Zionist leadership was concerned, but at the same time points out preparations for existence of such large minority. Lustick & Berkman 2017 pp. 47–48, "As Ben-Gurion told one Palestinian leader in the early 1930s, 'Our final goal is the independence of the Jewish people in Palestine, on both sides of the Jordan River, not as a minority, but as a community numbering millions" (Teveth 1985:130). Ipso facto, this meant Zionism's success would produce an Arab minority in Palestine, no matter what its geographical dimensions."; early 1930s N the goal is formulated as majority "numbering millions", not "as many Jews as possible" N "Arab minority", not "as few Arabs as possible" Stanislawski 2017 p. 65, "The upper classes of Palestinian society quickly fled the fight to places of safety within the Arab world and outside of it; the lower classes were caught between the Israeli desire to have as few Arabs as possible remaining in their new state and the Palestinians’ desire to remain on the lands they regarded as their ancient national patrimony." 1948 not mentioned Y Rouhana & Sabbagh-Khoury 2014 p. 6, ""It was obvious to most approaches within the Zionist movement—certainly to the mainstream as represented by Labor Zionism and its leadership headed by Ben Gurion, that a Jewish state would entail getting rid of as many of the Palestinian inhabitants of the land as possible,³³”... (33. Pappe, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine.) ... Following Wolfe, we argue that the logic of demographic elimination is an inherent component of the Zionist project as a settler-colonial project, although it has taken different manifestations since the founding of the Zionist movement."; not specified ("inherent component" doesn't provide a clear indication regarding temporality) not mentioned Y ? the authors quote Pappe, hence in context of this claim should be viewed as tertiary source Engel 2013 p. 96 "From the outset Zionism had been the activity of a loose coalition of individuals and groups united by a common desire to increase the Jewish population of Palestine ..."), p. 138 "To be sure, until the late 1930s most Zionists would have been delighted with any majority, no matter how slim; the thought that Jews in Palestine would ever be more numerous than Arabs appeared a distant vision. But in 1937 the Peel Commission had suggested ... to leave both the Jewish state and Arab Palestine with the smallest possible minorities. That suggestion had fired Zionist imaginations; now it was possible to think of a future state as ‘Jewish’ not only by international recognition of the right of Jews to dominate its government but by the inclinations of virtually all of its inhabitants. Such was how the bulk of the Zionist leadership understood the optimal ‘Jewish state’ in 1948: non-Jews (especially Arabs) might live in it and enjoy all rights of citizenship, but their numbers should be small enough compared to the Jewish population that their impact on public life would be minimal…") Explicitly considers two distinct periods - before and after the Peel Commission (1937) N Before the Peel Commission the goal was "any majority, no matter how slim". Y By 1948 - "virtually all of its inhabitants" N Before the Peel Commission the goal was just minority Y The Peel Commission proposed "smallest possible minorities" Y 1948 - " small enough compared to the Jewish population that their impact on public life would be minimal" Masalha 2012 p. 38, "From the late nineteenth century and throughout the Mandatory period the demographic and land policies of the Zionist Yishuv in Palestine continued to evolve. But its demographic and land battles with the indigenous inhabitants of Palestine were always a battle for 'maximum land and minimum Arabs' "From the late nineteenth century and throughout the Mandatory period" not mentioned "minimum Arabs" Y Lentin 2010 p. 7, "'the Zionist leadership was always determined to increase the Jewish space ... Both land purchases in and around the villages, and military preparations, were all designed to dispossess the Palestinians from the area of the future Jewish state' (Pappe 2008: 94)."; "always" not mentioned Y ? the author is not a historian, but a sociologist and the claims are direct quotes from Pappe, hence in context of this claim should be viewed as tertiary source Shlaim 2009 p. 56, "That most Zionist leaders wanted the largest possible Jewish state in Palestine with as few Arabs inside it as possible is hardly open to question."; not mentioned Y Pappe 2006 p. 250: “Ehud Olmert, now prime minister, knows that if Israel decides to stay in the Occupied Territories and its inhabitants become officially part of Israel’s population, Palestinians will outnumber Jews within fifteen years. Thus he has opted for what he calls hitkansut, Hebrew for ‘convergence’ or, better, ‘ingathering’, a policy that aims at annexing large parts of the West Bank, but at the same time leaves several populous Palestinian areas outside direct Israeli control. In other words, hitkansut is the core of Zionism in a slightly different garb: to take over as much of Palestine as possible with as few Palestinians as possible.” N talks about “Realignment plan” promoted by Ehud Olmert in 2006 - not relevant to the discussion of the pre-1948 period Morris 2004 p. 588, "But the displacement of Arabs from Palestine or from the areas of Palestine that would become the Jewish State was inherent in Zionist ideology and, in microcosm, in Zionist praxis from the start of the enterprise. The piecemeal eviction of tenant farmers, albeit in relatively small numbers, during the first five decades of Zionist land purchase and settlement naturally stemmed from, and in a sense hinted at, the underlying thrust of the ideology, which was to turn an Arab-populated land into a State with an overwhelming Jewish majority" p. 44: “Hence, if during the last decades of the 19th century and the first decades of the 20th century Zionist advocacy of transfer was uninsistent, low-key and occasional, by the early 1930s a full-throated near-consensus in support of the idea began to emerge among the movement’s leaders. Each major bout of Arab violence triggered renewed Zionist interest in a transfer solution.” p. 59: “The bouts of Zionist reflection about and espousal of transfer usually came not out of the blue but in response to external factors or initiatives: In the early 1930s, Zionist meditation on the idea of transfer was a by-product of Arab violence and the frustration of efforts to persuade the British to allow Zionist settlement in Transjordan; in the late 1930s, it was triggered by the Arab revolt and the Peel Commission’s recommendation to transfer the Arab population out of the area designated for Jewish statehood;” "inherent" or "underlying thrust"≠ explicit "want", therefore temporality of "want" is not defined in the currently used quote On the other hand, two additional quotes from p. 44 and p. 59 point to early 1930s as the time when such explicit near-consensual "want" began to form N the goal is formulated as "overwhelming Jewish majority", not "as many Jews as possible" N - "piecemeal eviction" or "displacement" ≠ "as few Arabs as possible" - claiming they are equivalent would be SYNTH. Additional sources Morris 2009 p. 351 " the idea of transfer was never adopted as part of the Zionist movement's platform, nor as part of the programme or platform of any of the main Zionist parties, not in the nineteenth century and not in the twentieth century. And, in general, the Zionist leaders looked to massive Jewish immigration, primarily from Russia and Europe, as the means of establishing and then assuring a Jewish majority in Palestine or whatever part of it was to be earmarked for Jewish statehood. until 1929 N the goal is formulated as "a Jewish majority" N Jewish majority was expected to be established through massive Jewish immigration, not "transfer" Laqueur 2009 p. 232: “...the idea of a population transfer was never official Zionist policy. Ben Gurion emphatically rejected it, saying that even if the Jews were given the right to evict the Arabs they would not make use of it. Most thought at that time that there would be sufficient room in Palestine for both Jews and Arabs following the industrialisation of the country and the introduction of intensive methods of agriculture…” pre-WWI period N mainstream rejection of transfer proposals "sufficient room in Palestine for both Jews and Arabs" Ther 2014 p. 191: “The extent to which the Zionists advanced the idea of population transfers during World War II is much disputed in the secondary literature. Palestinian authors such as Nur Masalha and advocates of “new history” in Israel have supported the argument that the Zionists had a master plan for the ethnic cleansing of Palestine from the start. There is little evidence to support this claim.” WWII ? This source casts doubt on the claims about "master plan for the ethnic cleansing of Palestine", which is closely related to the "as few Arabs as possible" claim Heller 2006 p. 573: “In spite of its realistic base we see a two-fold weakness in Morris’s thesis. First, it goes back to Herzl, the founding father of political Zionism, as the supposed creator of the idea of transfer. In reality, like everybody else in European politics in his day, Herzl was ignorant of the existence of Arab nationalism. At one point he noted briefly that transfer of the poor native population was possible for economic reasons, only to reject it a little later…" P. 574-575: “...one must conclude that it was the partition plan that was at the top on the Zionist agenda, and not transfer, even though both plans were inspired by the Peel Commission… ‘The fundamental dimension refers to the principles which determine the final goals and grand vistas in which the ideology is to be realized, while the operative dimension concerns the principles which guide concrete political actions’. I argue that both transfer and partition were expressions of ‘operative ideology’ not of ‘fundamental ideology’. Arab ethnic cleansing was therefore not more than an option of last resort in the event of war." P. 584 “Morris’s concept of transfer of the Arabs as the focus of Zionist decision making has no basis in political reality. “ N Heller disputes the framing of "transfer" (which is closely related to the "as few Arabs as possible" claim) as one of Zionist core goals Galnoor 1995. pp. 179-180 “The commission investigated the possibility of voluntary populations and land exchanges and the prospects of finding solutions for those who would be moved and reached the conclusion that it is "impossible to assume that the minority problem will be solved by a voluntary transfer of population." Incidentally, the commission also concluded that the Jews opposed forced transfer. Transfer as a concrete political possibility never exceeded the bounds of the 1937 royal commission report - it was born and buried there. It was not even mentioned in the United Nations partition plan of 1947. Had transfer not been included in the Peel commission report, it would not have been placed on the political agenda of the Zionist movement, even though the idea itself had been mentioned occasionally in the past.” N According to Galnor, transfer wasn't seriously considered by Zionist leadership either before Peel Commission's proposal or after it, and it wasn't an inherent part of mainstream Zionist thinking. Karsh 2010 p. 5: “...the recent declassification of millions of documents from the period of the British mandate and Israel’s early days, documents untapped by earlier generations of writers and ignored or distorted by the “new historians,” paint a much more definitive picture of the historical record, and one that is completely at odds with the anti-Israel caricature that is so often the order of the day. They reveal … that the claim of premeditated dispossession is not only baseless but the inverse of the truth; and that far from being the hapless victims of a predatory Zionist assault, it was Palestinian Arab leaders who, from the early 1920s onward, and very much against the wishes of their own constituents, launched a relentless campaign to obliterate the Jewish national revival which culminated in the violent attempt to abort the UN partition resolution. Had these leaders, and their counterparts in the neighboring Arab states, accepted the resolution, there would have been no war and no dislocation in the first place, for the simple reason that the Zionist movement was amenable both to the existence of a substantial non-Jewish minority in the prospective Jewish state on an equal footing, and to the two-state solution, raised for the first time in 1937 by a British commission of inquiry and reiterated by the partition resolution.” N "the Zionist movement was amenable ...to the existence of a substantial non-Jewish minority in the prospective Jewish state " Gorny 2006 p. 6: “Therefore, national values such as return to the soil, Jewish labor, the renaissance of Hebrew culture, and the aspiration to a Jewish majority became political fundamentals in Zionism... Zionist policy from Herzl’s time to the establishment of the State of Israel had three dimensions… The second dimension, the intercommunal, included Jewish-Arab relations in Palestine in all their senses. In an attempt to work out joint arrangements, if only partial and provisional, that would allow them to coexist with the Arab population of the country, the Zionists aspired to cooperation in municipal government, an arrangement for relations between Jewish and Arab labor organizations, general agrarian reform, and other matters. The third dimension was reflected in the Zionist Movement’s political plans and its ideas for the shaping of fair and enlightened relations between Jews and Arabs, who were embroiled in struggle for the same piece of land. By the very fact of having such plans, the movement signaled its intention to replace side-by-side existence with coexistence." p. 102: “In his background remarks to the proposal, Jabotinsky based himself solely on examples of federative regimes that had passed the test of political durability and met human and social moral standards. He disputed the argument that the Arabs of Palestine would become a nationally oppressed group after they became a minority of two million amid five million Jews, as his proposal envisaged.” (description of Jabotinsky’s 1940 constitution proposal) N "aspiration to a Jewish majority" N "the Zionists aspired to cooperation" "Zionist Movement’s political plans and its ideas for the shaping of fair and enlightened relations between Jews and Arabs" constitution proposal envisioning two million Arabs in future state - double their number in 1940, when the proposal was written Rubin 2019 p. 497: "Jabotinsky’s commitment to minority rights in Europe also shaped his outlook on the future of Palestine. From 1917 until the outbreak of the Second World War, Jabotinsky envisioned a majority Jewish state in Palestine with elaborate guarantees for the protection of the Arab minority. This vision was premised on a major moral leap that characterized many Zionist leaders – conceiving of Palestine’s Arab majority as a future minority subject to minority protections" p. 506 "...Jabotinsky also rejected the plan on moral grounds, fiercely opposing the idea of transferring the Arab population from Palestine. Jabotinsky underscored this point in several letters and speeches from 1937..." p. 508 "Zionist leaders had mocked Zangwill’s proposal for the expulsion of Arabs from Palestine during the First World War" Jabotinsky's position until the outbreak of WWII N "a majority Jewish state" N "elaborate guarantees for the protection of the Arab minority" "fiercely opposing the idea of transferring the Arab population from Palestine" "mocked Zangwill’s proposal for the expulsion of Arabs from Palestine" Penslar 2023 p. 67 "There is a deep divide, however, between scholars who do and do not conceive of Zionism as a variety of colonialism. Debates about virtually every aspect of the history of Zionism and Israel boil down to clashing conceptions of the essence of the Zionist project—whether it has been one of homecoming and seeking asylum or one of colonial settlement and expropriation. Two key questions run through the debate over Zionism and colonialism. First, is Zionism inherently inclusive or separatist, open to the coterminous exercise of Jewish and Arab self-determination within historic Palestine, or determined to drive the indigenous Palestinians out of the land?..." N points out that the narrative of "as few Arabs as possible" is just one side of the scholarly debate about Zionism and is far from being a consensus

As can be seen from the table, several of the existing sources don't support the "as many Jews, as few Arabs as possible" framing, and some of them support it only as description of a particular period, rather than a core Zionist goal throughout the pre-state period.

And the additional sources either dispute the "as few Arabs" part entirely, or at least acknowledge that there is no scholarly consensus about it.'