Talk:Zionism as settler colonialism

What dose this have to do with settler colonialism

„argues that Zionism was the repatriation of a long displaced indigenous population to their historic homeland“ this is one kind of justification for Settler colonialism, I mean who ever lived there 3000 Years ago has nothing to do with the theory. At best it is a moral argument 2A02:3035:A0F:5DB2:D023:C5B5:593F:7545 (talk) 20:14, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Restore removal of content

I reverted this edit [1], restoring the content it removed, which was:

Many of the fathers of Zionism themselves described it as colonialism, such as Vladimir Jabotinsky who said "Zionism is a colonization adventure".

Explanation given for removal was: "WP:SYNTH, not settler... He speaks of use of term colonization which is of a different context - is out of context, and the quote also doesn't refer to many."
@Homerethegreat. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 04:57, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Note you need to do a proper internal primary citation of Jabotinsky (#15). SamuelRiv (talk) 04:42, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to do that. I've only recently been learning how to cite references properly. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 04:53, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Hey there, yes the source speaks of Jabotinsky using colonization in a different context. And also the source doesn't talk about many... What is the issue? Homerethegreat (talk) 12:23, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

The content has been removed again [2] without discussion. Edit summary "Settler colonialism never mentioned". @Agmonsnir. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:50, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

How difficult is it to understand that settler colonialism and colonization go hand in hand?? These editors are grasping at straws just for a reason to be disruptive. Salmoonlight (talk) 20:47, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

It's important you understand that there are a variety of different perspectives and the two are different concepts. There's no need to assert that one is being disruptive even if you don't agree. Homerethegreat (talk) 12:15, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

The quote in question is quite clearly about settlement within the context of a colonial framework - and the reason for removal is inmerited. Given the absence of actual discussion here, further removal will be clear edit warring. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:07, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I saw you restored the sentence, note that per WP:ONUS you need to show the source backs what you're writing. The current source refers only to Jabotinsky.

Many of the fathers of Zionism themselves described it as colonialism, such as Vladimir Jabotinsky who said "Zionism is a colonization adventure"

Therefore the above is incorrect per the source. Iskandar it would be great if you could self rv the content until you've proven per WP:ONUS. Homerethegreat (talk) 12:13, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think this source is so great. Though it is correct about Jabotinsky, it is more significant that practically every Zionist leader, and the Zionism organisations, called it colonialism. The protocols of the Zionist congresses do that hundreds of times. It would be possible to go through all of the "fathers" of Zionism and find somewhere they called it colonialism, but really a source with a good summary is needed. Zero^talk 13:31, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I think it should be removed until then. And again I think the context of use was different and therefore I think it does not merit so much use here. Homerethegreat (talk) 14:55, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Not sure who added back the sentence, but the source Alan Hart is really not great... He's been accused of antisemitism and is considered a conspiracy theorist by some [3] Homerethegreat (talk) 14:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Being accused of antisemitism by ADL only means he said something negative about Israel, which is irrelevant to reliability. However, subscribing to conspiracy theories is a black mark which confirms my opinion that we need a better source. Zero^talk 01:58, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Masalha 2012 p. 60: For over half a century, in the period between 1882 and 1948, terms such as Zionist ‘colonies’ and Zionist ‘colonisation’ were universally and unashamedly used by senior Zionist leaders... Levivich (talk) 19:27, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

References

Edit dispute

This recent edit dispute should be discussed. @PrimaPrime, @Skitash. - IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 03:35, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

@PrimaPrime I'm uncertain about the reasoning behind your decision to completely alter the lede, as it appears to lack neutrality. Your deletion of a crucial and well-supported statement, which is integral to the article's notability Many of the fathers of Zionism themselves described it as colonialism, such as Vladimir Jabotinsky who said "Zionism is a colonization adventure." and the addition of an excessive amount of WP:UNDUE criticism by associating the topic with a one-state solution in the second sentence indicate a potential POV issue. I suggest familiarizing yourself with WP:NPOV and reconsidering your edit, as I am unable to revert it again due to the one-revert rule. Skitash (talk) 12:27, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think I completely altered it at all...I moved Jabotinsky up to that second sentence. And the sources are pretty clear that the analogy is today near inherently associated with 1SS proponents. Not sure how that's a "criticism" from a POV standpoint. PrimaPrime (talk) 13:10, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

What made you delete the crucial statement about Zionist leaders characterizing Zionism as a "colonization adventure"? Skitash (talk) 13:13, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Again, it's right there: "Zionism has been described as a form of settler colonialism in relation to the region of Palestine and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Although notable early Zionists employed this characterization like Ze'ev Jabotinsky in 'The Iron Wall'..."

Of course the complication with the exact wording you mention is the academic settler colonialism framing posits that "settler colonization" is almost the inverse of simple "colonization", a point which has previously been stressed in discussions on this page, but I've put the relevant quote in the reference for now. PrimaPrime (talk) 18:09, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Can't say I understand the sentence "Although notable early Zionists employed this characterization like Ze'ev Jabotinsky in "The Iron Wall", today it is associated with anti-zionist activists and academics who support a one-state solution to the conflict". IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:30, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

What's unclear? The zionism-as-colonialism analogy was indeed notable among early zionists, but now that colonialism is seen as a bad thing in most circles, it's anti-zionist one-staters who promote the idea. From Tawil-Souri (2016) for instance:

"Calling Israel a settler colonial regime is an argument increasingly gaining purchase in activist and, to a lesser extent, academic circles. The work of Elia Zureik, who has been making this argument since at least 1979, has been formative therein...

Implicitly there are a number of political conclusions that are of importance in Zureik's book: thinking of 'Israel proper' and the Palestinian Territories as separate entities, and separating Israel’s policies according to a pre- and post-1967 time frame hide what is a long-lasting and pervasive structure of control. The reality on the ground is a striated and segregated hierarchy imposed ultimately by one regime across the entirety of Israel/Palestine. By implication, the two-state solution is long dead."

PrimaPrime (talk) 20:52, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Copyvio ?!

the last two edits were reverted by @CFA under the pretext of WP:copyvio. But he made no elaboration about where exactly was this copyvio, i was careful in avoiding the usage of the same words the source do, beside that, you reverted two edits not just one, one of which (the first one) had literally just two words in common word with the source which was “colonization department”, which also had nothing to do with the source you claimed the copyvio from. Can you elaborate where exactly was the violation ? Also why didn’t you correct it rather than deleting it entirely and restoring a content that i made clear was not just WP:OR, but contradicting the source it is citing ?

@M.Bitton @Skitash can you help me note where am i mistaking ? Stephan rostie (talk) 22:12, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Lede

@Stephan rostie: you keep claiming You removed crucial summarizing content as well as misrepresented a source (displaying a half information without mentioning the other half)., can you please detail exactly what you think has removed crucial summarizing content and what misrepresented a source are in reference to, as neither of these claims is in line with the edits made. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 14:22, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

A crucial content you removed was the part which mentioned that early zionists and zionism founders themselves described zionism as colonialism or used colonial terminology, and that major zionist organizations themselves held colonial identity in their names and departments. That should without a doubt be stated clearly in the lead.

As for the part where you clearly misrepresent the cited source and even adding your own claim is in sabbagh khoury cited content, the source states that the settler colonial paradigm on the zionist project emerged in the 1960s, whereas not just you omit and ignore that, but say it emerged in the 1990s. The source state that it emerged in 1960s then reemerged again in the 1990s among Palestinian scholars in israel. The source also attribute that to the shift among israeli palestinians in the 1990s from promoting a two state solution to a one state solution equal for all as a result of what author called “political processes” among the israeli Palestinian society in that period. On the other hand, you completely make your own WP:OR saying that the it is because of “failure of israeli Palestinian peace process” Stephan rostie (talk) 19:25, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

@Stephan rostie: regarding Sabbagh-Khoury, if you look back at the edit history (which you should be aware of since you first reverted this before the correction was added to the article), the correction of the dates from the Sabbagh-Khoury source were added after the first reduction, so the summation was correct per the article body. If you then look, I am in fact the editor who corrected the body to agree with what Sabbagh-Khoury says in the source. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:17, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for making me note that you did changes, but still you didn’t solve several issues:

1. you didn’t solve the WP:OR about the shift in israeli-Palestinian society in 1990s which you write that it was “in response to the perceived failures of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process”, thats your own OR and has nothing with what the source is saying.

2. You even added another OR saying that it “gained traction in the 1960s among Palestinian scholars”, the source never said that it emerged among Palestinian scholars or made it exclusive to them or to any group, thats another OR, what it does is saying that it reemerged among israeli Palestinian scholars in 1990s

3. You gave a very low due weight to the idenfication of zionism founders to the zionist project as a colonial project by mentioning it briefly , and you completely removed the mention of the colonial identity of names and departments of the major zionist organizations.

4. i totally oppose your removal of citations and cited sources from the lead

I do agree with you that the lead has to be more summarized, but i don’t think totally rewriting and reformatting the article lead is necessary at all, i believe the problem lies in the quotations of individual scholars and specific views of individual scholars, removing them from the lead would solve the issue and make it perfectly summarized. What do you think ? Stephan rostie (talk) 02:48, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

@Stephan rostie are you unable to read?

1. it is not my OR it is a summation of the article body, if you have an issue with this statement, correct the article, AND the statement EXISTED in the lede prior to my edits.

2. Again, correct the article body.

3. The lede is a summary of the article body, not a repeat of every statement in the body.

4. Read WP:Lead.

5. In your reversion you keep reverting other edits separate from the lede, please stop doing this.

-- Cdjp1 (talk) 08:21, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

1. Regardless, you kept re-including it even after i showed that this is totally not what the source says

5. my pardon, i didn’t mean to

3. okay you get a point here, the thing is I didn’t notice that you had included it in details in the body as i clarified in (5)

as for the rest, its okay and i am willing to compromise if you insist and find it very necessary, nevertheless I still (in my opinion) don’t see it necessary to rewrite and reformat the lead rather than just removing the quotations of individual scholars. Anyway, i will restore your lead and fix the minor errors above. Stephan rostie (talk) 19:15, 29 July 2024 (UTC)