Talk:Zionism/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 22

Bias

• At the very least I feel that the notion of "re-"establishing the Jewish state should be queried - this is of course the use of langauge to prejudge the conclusion. The sense it which it is being "re"-established is very peculiar to Zionism and Judaism. It is as though the Romans were to "re-establish" Britannica in Britain today. (It is not like the Native Americans who very justifiably could argue the need to re-establish themselves in North America.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.114.39 (talk) 17:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Israel was national home for Jews once, and the goal of Zionism was to make it a national home again, i.e. to re-establish it. It is very much the same as Native Americans (assuming they lost their national home). If Romans were to re-capture Britannia, they would certainly be re-establishing the province. The prefix "re" indicates repetition, and it is indeed the case here. *Not* using the prefix for Israel is biased, since it's an attempt to hide the fact that Israel was the national home for the Jewish people in the past. “WarKosign” 08:25, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

"national home", there were several Jewish kingdoms, who weren't always sovereign. The terms of "re-establishing" portrays that there was a unified Jewish kingdom whose native inhabitants were expelled and only to return, ignoring all the different places that some Israelis today belong to; Yemen/Russia/Argentina/Ethiopia.. Its inaccurate and generalizes, a simple google search shows that "re-establishing" is overwhelmingly used by Jewish sources. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:27, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Another problem with "re-" is that it implies some similiarity between the modern country of Israel and an ancient state. None of these ancient states were defined as a "Jewish state" or a "Jewish homeland". Not to mention the fact that the Hasmonean state was arguably more of a "Hellenic Judean" state than a Jewish state, and the "Kingdom of Israel" has no archaeological evidence supporting its existance. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:48, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I strongly disagree, Romans never argued Britannica was 'home' - what nonsense, they came from Italy. Whereas every passover welcomes the prospect of a Jewish return to Jerusalem. The religious foundation of Judaism and Christianity is based on the old Jewish state, and its reestablishment under Zerubabbel, Yeshua, Ezra, Nehemiah, only wilful ignorance can deny this. This is extremely similar to North Americans or Australian aboriginals reestablishing their own state, in a since occupied land, as genetic studies of Levitical lineages confirm[1]. That there are differences from Herod's kingdom, which was imposed on the inhabitants of Judaea by force, is of little relevance, it was a predominantly Jewish state then now and it is now. Cpsoper (talk) 12:32, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Which "Jewish state" exactly are we talking about? "North Americans or Australian aboriginals reestablishing their own state", thats ethnicity not religion. Anyone can be a Jew. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:54, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

This is right. This is also true from other perspectives - what it means to be a Jew today is different to the ancient term Ioudaioi or equivalent, which had a geographical sense as well.

And the modern state was established by followers of Rabbinic Judaism, a sect whose forebears the Pharisees were a very small minority in ancient times. Oncenawhile (talk) 13:04, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

You are engaging in original research, and even that you got wrong. See Who is a Jew? - there are many definition, and it's open for interpretation whether Jewish state means religion or nationality or both. Nobody in their right mind would think that re-established State of Israel is identical or even similar to ancient kingdoms. "Re-established" refers to national home, not to a specific type of state. It's a plain fact that this land once was a national home for the Jews (by some definition), and now it is again. Please refrain from edit-warring and do not repeatedly apply a change that clearly lacks consensus. “WarKosign” 09:04, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

@WarKosign: you wrote that "plain fact that this land once was a national home for the Jews (by some definition), and now it is again"; that is an incorrect statement. In fact the opposite is true - the land within the borders of 1948 Israel had technically never been any kind of "homeland" for Jews. Ancient Jews, or more correctly "Ioudaioi" were from "Iudaea", a region in the West Bank. Jews were not from the Paralia coast, or Galilee or the Negev, although some of those peoples did convert under the Hasmoneans. I am focusing on the Hellenic period because any interpretation prior to that period must be based solely on the Bible, and Wikipedia does not quote the Bible as fact. But even if we did follow the Bible the same holds true - Biblical Judeans were from Judea, a region not included in 1948 Israel. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:57, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually, more correct would be "Yehudim" which was/is the Hebrew pronunciation of Jews. Though "Am Yisrael" and "Klal Yisrael" are used by the religious as well. Iudaea is the Roman pronunciation of Yehuda. The word Jews is short for Judeans, which is the English pronunciation of Yehuda, in Hebrew it's Yehudi. When speaking of re-establishing the Jewish Homeland, Zionists are referring to before the Roman destruction, not the Hellenic period (for example, Masada is an important icon in Zionism) Drsmoo (talk) 04:03, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Drsmoo, Hellenic was before Roman. I think you are confusing with Byzantine. Does your comment mean that you agree with my overall point. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:27, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Hellenic was before Roman. Your statement that the land within the borders of 1948 was never a homeland for Jews is factually incorrect. Your choice of the Hellenic period is strange and arbitrary as well. Drsmoo (talk) 08:44, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

@Drsmoo: If it is factually incorrect, please explain why. "Jews" / "Judeans" are named after Judea, a region not included in 1948 Israel. If you think I am missing something, please explain. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:01, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I feel like there's a disconnect here. I don't see what your argument is? Are you saying that the actual location of the Jewish homeland doesn't matter, because the name of the people is "Jews" are therefore it can only be the most geographically limited version Judea, regardless of where their homeland actually extended to? Even that argument, which isn't relevant to the discussion to begin with doesn't make sense, as Judea included the provinces of Samara, Galilee, and Edom, though the general area was predominantly Jewish even before then. Maybe you should consider asking Jews where they consider their ancient homeland to be? Drsmoo (talk) 20:15, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I am simply saying that the closest one could come to for a concept of "homeland" for ancient Jews / Judeans is the region they were named after - that is the region of "Judea".

Your point about inclusion of Samaria, Galilee and Edom is mistaken; the expansion of the Hasmonean state into those regions was temporary, for less than 50 years, and anyway is totally irrelevant to the concept of "homeland". Your argument is as absurd as saying that Persia was part of the "Macedonian homeland", because it was temporarily part of their empire and they expanded their culture within in. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:45, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Those regions were all part of Judea, why are you focusing on the most geographically limited version? They were part of the Jewish homeland before 44 CE as well. Jews have been quite consistent about where their homeland is for over two thousand years. Who do you think you are telling them what their homeland is? This is also well documented in history books written about Jews. Your personal animus, while legitimate as far as your feelings as an individual, has no bearing on an encyclopedia article. Btw, I sent you a message on your talk page, I hope we can continue to collaborate effectively. Drsmoo (talk) 22:51, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Because the homeland of the Judeans / Jews was Judea, the homeland of the Samaritans was Samaria and the homeland of the Galileans was Galilee. Judaism expanded into the adjacent terroritories under the Hasmoneans, and when the Romans came along they temporarily applied the name across the whole area.

Cutting to the chase, this question between us boils down to "what is a homeland", and when considering an "ancient Jewish homeland" where should we draw the line when considering who were the "original Jews".

On a separate note, your statement "Jews have been quite consistent about where their homeland is for over two thousand years", couldn't be less true. The influence of Zionism on Jewish thought has been so massive that it has affected the Jewish memory and perspectives on history. This is not a Jewish-specific issue but a worldwide nationalism-specific issue. Nationalism fools its learners into thinking that the way we conceive history today is the way we have always done. See Historiography and nationalism. That you believe the sentence you wrote suggests you have yet to test some of the narratives you learned over the years from less-than-scholarly sources. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:31, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

No, the homeland of Jews is Judea and Israel, and has remained so. Your claim about the "influence of Zionism on Jewish thought" is both insulting and ridiculous. I went to Yeshiva for over ten years, both orthodox and ultra-orthodox, and read LOTS of texts that were hundreds and thousands of years old. This is similar to a "discussion" we had on the Jews talk page where you claimed that Jews never considered themselves descended from the patriarchs until recently, only to be confronted with reality. As someone who studied in a Yeshiva for over 11 years, reading many, VERY old texts that are central to Judaism, your claim is profoundly and demonstrably wrong to an amazing degree. But here are just a few, let me know and I'll add as many as you could possibly read.

"Have mercy, L-rd our G‑d, on Israel Your people, on Jerusalem Your city, on Zion the abode of Your glory, on Your altar and on Your Temple. Rebuild Jerusalem, the holy city, speedily in our days, and bring us up into it, and make us rejoice in it, and we will bless You in holiness and purity"- from the Hagaddah (this is what Jews read on Passover, btw, as I pointed out to you before, and have continued to read since around 300 CE)

"A person should always live in Eretz Yisrael, even in a city that is mostly inhabited by non-Jews, and not in the Diaspora, even in a city that is mostly inhabited by Jews. For all those that live in Eretz Yisrael are as if they have a G-d, and all those that live in the Diaspora are as if they have no G-d." - This is from the Mishnah (Ketubot) It was written around 300 CE

"And to Jerusalem, thy city, return in mercy, and dwell therein as thou hast spoken; rebuild it soon in our days as an everlasting building, and speedily set up therein the throne of David. * Blessed art thou, O Lord, who rebuildest Jerusalem." From the Siddur (this is what Jews pray from, in case you were wondering.)

In fact, of all the religions on earth, there is likely no other one that holds a physical place to as much centrality and importance as Israel and Jerusalem in Judaism. Your perceptions of Judaism are incredibly incorrect and profoundly ignorant Drsmoo (talk) 00:27, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

@Drsmoo: I am sorry to push this as it is clearly sensitive, but I think perspective could be helpful here. Imagine if I took your words and amended them to have been spoken by a Muslim: "I went to Madrassa for over ten years, both Sunni and Wahhabi, and read LOTS of texts that were hundreds and thousands of years old." How would this give an editor any right to a more balanced and encyclopaedic perspective on Pan-Islamism than any other editor?

And to suggest that Zionism has not influenced mainstream Jewish thought profoundly is absurd. Perhaps the most visible proof is that every mainstream synagogue built today exhibits the Star of David in pride of place. Perhaps your Yeshivas did too. Yet many Rabbis and synagogue leaders do not realise that it is basically a Zionist symbol, and has no religious value. The same is true for many of the currents in modern Judaism. Look at the way certain prayers and holidays have been emphasized over the last centuy. Sure the longing for Jerusalem has always existed in the religion, but prior to Zionism it was but a quiet corner.

To the quotes you brought, the first and third only underpin my point as to Jerusalem (in Judea) being the focus, not the coastal region, negev and Galilee. As to the Mishnah quote, that says nothing about it being a homeland, only that it is holy (as Christian and Islamic writings also state). In fact it acknowledges that many cities in the region are not mostly inhabited by Jews, which is inconsistent with the concept of a homeland. Oncenawhile (talk) 10:15, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Don't be sorry, it's just very clear you know very little about Judaism, which is fine, this is an opportunity to learn. If I said something about Islam that was clearly incorrect, I would welcome correction from someone that was knowledgeable about the history of Islamic thought. I would never try to claim that I knew more than them about Islam. Your claim about a "quiet corner" is also laughable to any Jewish person. I see that you started a new talk page topic as well, which is strange as it's about the exact same subject as this one. In any case, I started reading it, it talks about the term ancestral land as something common to nationalism. There's a flaw in your logic though, in that you didn't bother to actually be aware of what Jews have been writing about the subject for thousands of years. More so, something that's been central to Judaism for thousands of years. Most startlingly, you didn't even bother to look, yet you spoke with such confidence about something you know absolutely nothing about. The idea of Israel as the ancestral homeland for Jews is absolutely fundamental to Judaism. For example, just using the term "Homeland" we have "

"The Romans completed what the Greeks had started and exiled the Jewish people from their homeland." - Radak (This is from the 12th century)

"The Jewish people when in their ancestral land, by contrast, will have to depend on the rain to irrigate their land. As a result they will realise the need for their G’d being well disposed towards them as else He might withhold the required rainfall at the appropriate time for securing their success in the fields." - Daat Zkenim (13th century)

"Our sages have said that the expression "your tents," refers to periods when Israel is at peace in its homeland, whereas the word "your dwellings," refers even to periods when the Land and Temple of Israel is in ruins." - Isaiah Horowitz, Shney Luchot Habrit, 16th Century)

It boggles my mind that you read something about modern nationalism and therefore thought you could just dismiss Judaism. Btw, your uncivil accusation in the edit commentary is uncalled for. There is no tag-teaming, but there is consensus. The combination of wilful ignorance and conspiracy theories is a bad look. Drsmoo (talk) 11:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

It really boggles my mind when you bring up mentions of Islam and Judaism as if this is a religious conflict. The core of this is a political conflict, and bringing up some random quotes is WP:ORIGINAL at best. If your so knowledgeable about Jewish history and its link to Zionism, why don't you publish a book, professor. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:07, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Oncenawhile brought up both Judaism and Islam, I only responded to his incorrect religious claims. Nothing I posted is linked to zionism btw, just fundamentals of Jewish religion. If you went to the most anti-zionist Satmer/Neturei Karta member they'd tell you the same thing. Drsmoo (talk) 11:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

That's a biased view of fundamentals of Jewish religion. I don't think Hebrew bible says you can, for example, ethnic cleanse people. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:05, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually, you are wrong. According to the bible, god commanded genocide of several peoples, and of course performed several genocides himself (the flood, Sodom and Gomorrah). Looks like the bible is not a good guide for morality. “WarKosign” 12:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Interesting, well its always good to be an atheist. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@Drsmoo: thank you for bringing those quotes. They prove my point to certainty. I did the same as you, and searched through the tens of the thousands of texts on the Sefaria Project. In all those texts, these are the only three I could find which use the term homeland or equivalent in the sense we are discussing it here. But I then took it one step further and looked at the Hebrew text. You will find that both Radak's and the Tosafot commentary are very different in Hebrew. Again the inaccuracy of these modern English translations is another example of how Zionism influences Jewish thought subconsciously (again, this is a trait applicable to all religio-/ethnic- nationalisms). As to the early modern Horowitz quote, his mystical writings were and are not representative of mainstream. So a pitiful three out of tens of thousands becomes none. So, I suspect you have stopped finding "quiet corner" laughable. The themes you believe so deeply in are not as deeply embedded as you have been led to think. Oncenawhile (talk) 13:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

You just said random words but didn't actually respond. A bad translation? Not mainstream? Those aren't responses. We're not actually having a debate btw, I'm telling you about Judaism. The point has been made as I'm not only talking to you. Drsmoo (talk) 17:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@Drsmoo: Have you read the Hebrew versions yet? Oncenawhile (talk) 17:19, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

If you want to make the claim that it's a bad translation then substantiate your claim. The point regarding homeland has been established, as has consensus. If you'd like to continue this debate, feel free to head to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism as we're no longer talking about Zionism. Drsmoo (talk) 17:24, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Drsmoo, ok since you were not willing to read them yourself, here are the Hebrew excerpts in all their glory:

• Radak (no mention of "the Jewish people from their homeland"): ואיל הם מדי ופרס, ולפי שמלכו בבל נקרא מלכותם איל, והנה רמז מלכות בבל ופרס, אע"פ ששלחו גלותם, מלכים מהם האריכו גלותם ואחרו בנין הבית והעיר
• Daat Zkenim (no mention of "The Jewish people when in their ancestral land"): שהיא ארץ מישור שאדם יכול להמשיך מים לשדותיו מן הנהרות כמו שעושים לגן הירק הנזרעים על שפת הנהר אלא היא ארץ הרים ובקעות ואין אדם יכול להשקותם כי אם למטר השמים תשתה מים ותמיד אתם צריכים להקב"ה ולכך הזהרו במצותיו כדי שיוריד לכם מטר בעתו

The English translations you posted above from Rb. Élie Munk appear to have been influenced by Zionist thought. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, I thought you were going to post an alternate translation, no contradiction here. This discussion has been settled, if you'd like to continue with your conspiracy theories about Judaism, feel free to start a topic at Wikiproject Judaism Drsmoo (talk) 22:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

So you have not been able to find a single pre-modern source about Jewish homeland. Correct? Oncenawhile (talk) 23:16, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism Drsmoo (talk) 23:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@Drsmoo: you made a clear statement relevant to the edits at this article that "The idea of Israel as the ancestral homeland for Jews is absolutely fundamental to Judaism". The quotes on which you based this judgement have since been proven to be nothing of the sort. And the discussion has provided another proof point as to how nationalism has infected Jewish thought, such that even neutral people like yourself can be misled. So, do you withdraw your statement, or can you provide new evidence? Oncenawhile (talk) 07:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

This talk page isn't for screeds against thousand+ year old Jewish texts, if you'd like to continue discussing Judaism, feel free to discuss it at the appropriate talk page Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_JudaismDrsmoo (talk) 07:59, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your withdrawl. Your intellectual honesty is appreciated. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

"Ancestral homeland" is more accurate than Palestinian return to Israel, considering the vast majority of palestinians have never lived in Israel (or pre-israel mandatory palestine) and have no place to return to. In comparison the ancestors of most Jews did live in Israel, so it is their ancestral homeland, but they are only metaphorically returning to it.--Monochrome_Monitor 01:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The phrase "Jewish homeland" is itself a product of revolutionary westphalianism. It's a reassertion of the right to sovereignty over land long controlled by foreign empires. "Israelite" was once synonymous with "Jew", and "Palestinian" was even used to mean "Jew" at times. Only recently has this become controversial.--Monochrome_Monitor 01:31, 14 June 2016 (UTC) ===[break] 2016 discussion===t

[2], [3]. Not only do we have more results for "establishing" but "re-establishing" is almost exclusively used by Jewish related sources. 1780 vs 32, thats an overwhelming majority. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:16, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

WarKosign please do not edit war. WP:ONUS is very clear "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." Unless you can support its inclusion with high quality reliable sources, the "re-" cannot remain in this article.

Anyway, you say that "re-established refers to national home", but "national home" has no meaning in ancient times. Wikipedia does not state national myths in its neutral voice.

Oncenawhile (talk) 10:28, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Please don't. WP:ONUS is clearly about adding new information, here we are talking about removing content that had long-standing consensus. The appropriate policies are WP:TALKDONTREVERT and for now WP:NOCONSENSUS.“WarKosign” 10:36, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

All the policies which you are linking to should be followed by all of us here, including you.

ONUS is applicable here because this part of the original edit [4] made 19 months ago was never discussed. The first part of the edit (re irridentism) was discussed at /Archive_15#Irredentism.2C_nation_state.2C_objectivity..., but the reestablishment addition was forgotten in the chaos and never discussed. No consensus was ever gained for its conclusion. You may argue that silent consensus was there, but that is the weakest form of consensus. Now that a discussion has been opened, it is clear that such consensus does not currently exist.

Oncenawhile (talk) 12:05, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Unless actual scholarly support can be shown for its inclusion, the "re-" will be removed. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:30, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Here's one eminent official source, 'Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled. That the United States - (1) recognises the historic significance of the 50th anniversary of the reestablishment of the sovereign and independent modern State of Israel.'[5]. Cpsoper (talk) 22:31, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Rodney Frelinghuysen is not an expert on this subject. He is a politician. The Senate and House are full of politicians. The US Senate and House have been considered to be pro-Israeli for many years, and therefore are non-neutral from an academic perspective. The Senate doesn't accept human cause of climate change [6] but Wikipedia doesn't follow their lead there either. Politicians are not scientists and are not historians. They are non-expert and partisan in almost every field.

This is an academic question, so we need high quality academic sources.

Oncenawhile (talk) 22:44, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Even if high quality academic sources are found, sources mentioning "establishment" probably outnumber them. Makeandtoss (talk) 22:59, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Honestly I think that kind of proves the point. The US Congress at present time is a decidedly pro-Zionist body, and the language it uses reflects that. Wikipedia, unless Im mistaken, is neither pro or anti Zionist, and our language shouldnt be indicative of one of those stances. nableezy - 05:49, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

The aim of Zionism was to establish something. A statement that the "establishment" was actually a "re-establishment" is not a neutral statement but part of the Zionist argument that they were morally entitled to it. The article should mention this argument, but using it in Wikipedia's voice would be a travesty of NPOV. It would be like using "redeem" instead of "purchase" for land acquisition, which has similar Zionist credentials. Zero^talk 23:14, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

• Let me point out to how the Balfour Declaration states "establishment". Makeandtoss (talk) 23:37, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Wholeheartedly agree with Zero. nableezy - 23:45, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

The section is about aims of the Zionist movement, not about the Balfour declaration. Returning to the Jewish homeland is common parlance and re-establish is used in the Israeli Declaration of Independence. The sentence "Zionism is a nationalist and political movement of Jews and Jewish culture that supports the re-establishment of a Jewish homeland in the territory defined as the historic Land of Israel" is factually correct. Drsmoo (talk) 03:48, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok, its about the aims of the Zionist movement, but its the encyclopedias voice discussing those aims, and using "re-establishment of a Jewish homeland in the territory" uses a Zionist POV in the encyclopedia's voice. Much like saying "appropriating Arab territory for a Jewish homeland" would be an anti-Zionist POV. Language such as return or re-establish, or conversely colonize or appropriate, are not simply "factually correct", they are POVs of the parties involved. And frankly, I dont even see why this is being argued over if it isnt POV. Establish would include "re-establish" in its definition, whereas re-establish would not necessarily include the set of things covered by "established". So why even argue against using "establish" instead or "re-establish" if it isnt endorsing some POV? nableezy - 05:47, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate your reasoning and line-of-thinking but personally disagree. I think the inverse of colonize/appropriate btw would be something Bush-like, like "liberate". I don't perceive any positive/negative connotations to either establish or re-establish. If the sentence instead used "the modern establishment" I think it would work, but with the current sentence structure, not having re-establish would seem to imply that there wasn't a Jewish homeland there in the past, which, although some believe that, is incorrect. Drsmoo (talk) 08:44, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Another prominent witness for 'reestablishment', though if Congress is seen here as a profoundly partisan body, perhaps other editors will choose to disregard its library too. Reestablishment is a simple statement of fact, it is POV to censor the historic existence of a Jewish state in the same territory, and that this had a prominent role in motivating early Zionists.

"Reestablishment" is a statement of romantic nonsense. There are many disconnects between the ancient history of the region and modern Jews / Judaism / Israel. There isn't a single similarily one could choose that holds up to any serious scrutiny. Which is why no serious scholar would ever use the term. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:05, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

"No serious scholar" sounds like it's setting up for a No true Scotsman fallacy. It's a strange statement to make as well, given that essentially every history book written about the Jewish people includes their origins in Israel/Judea. Drsmoo (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

You are avoiding the point. A vague sense of origins is very different to claiming that a state or homeland in the modern world is somehow the same as the political arrangements of ancient times. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:34, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

No one is talking about a "vague sense of origins". It is a very concrete, tangible, and well-established origin. Drsmoo (talk) 22:38, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Prove it then. I suspect you have no idea how nationalism has warped the history of every people. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:37, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Check the sources in the article on Jews: "The Jews ... also known as the Jewish people, are an ethnoreligious group originating from the Israelites, or Hebrews, of the Ancient Near East.". Anything else you need citation for ? “WarKosign” 05:50, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

It's not surprising to see that, despite initial claims to the contrary, the intentions of recent edits are in fact to deny history. Drsmoo (talk) 23:19, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Friend, throwing around accusations gets us nowhere; I could equally well sit here and accuse you of "denying history". Shlomo Sand has been mentioned; are you familiar with Israel Finkelstein? --BowlAndSpoon (talk) 23:26, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

You claimed that a historical fact wasn't a historical fact, that is a textbook version of denying history. Israel Finkelstein is an archaeologist and biblical minimalist who believes that the Kingdoms of David and Solomon were either very small or didn't exist, and instead believes that Omri was the more prominent Jewish king. That has nothing to do with the expulsion from Rome, the Roman-Jewish wars, or Jewish history in the region, all of which are extremely well documented. That somehow these thousands of years of history were claimed to be a Zionist Mythology is baffling. Perhaps Josephus was a Zionist Mythologist in 75 CE. Drsmoo (talk) 23:53, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not consider Old Testament biblical history to be hard facts. When Jospehus wrote of that period, hundreds of years before his own, he used the Bible as a source. Oncenawhile (talk) 10:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

You're referring to Antiquities of the Jews. I'm talking about The Jewish War Drsmoo (talk) 11:15, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Right ok, your "three thousand" years statement was confusing. The classical (Greco-Roman) part of Jewish history is relatively concrete. On that we are agreed. As has been acknowledged above, the "homeland" of the Hasmonean state was the region of Judea. Temporary territorial conquests do not make a homeland. Oncenawhile (talk) 14:03, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@WarKosign: if you still support "re-" established, please could you be clear exactly what you think was reestablished? The Hasmonean state? The Davidic Kingdom of Israel? The exiled Jeconian Kingdom of Judah? Oncenawhile (talk) 22:50, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Note that Establishment of Israel has 340k results and Reestablishment of Israel and Re-establishment of Israel combined have 93k results. So it all really depends on what you put in quotes. Anyway, "re-established" is objectively true. Was "Israel" reestablished? No, that's arguably a nationalist concept dependent on the idea that the modern israel is a continuation of the ancient one. But a "Jewish state" was objectively reestablished.--Monochrome_Monitor 23:21, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Specifically which historical state was objectively re-established? Oncenawhile (talk) 07:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Also, look at the hits you get in googlebooks for the links you posted. "re-" or "re" gets you theological works. Just "establishment" gets you secular works. Wikipedia is a secular encyclopedia. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:51, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a secular encyclopedia, it's an encyclopedia. You are just trying to exclude Jewish theology from Wikipedia by your claim. If something is part of a religion for thousands of years, of course it's going to be in theological works. Are you seriously claiming that the Jewish homeland is a modern invention? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

My point is simply that the question of whether something was "re" established is a question for historians, not for theologians.

And yes, modern scholarship does indeed suggest that the homeland concept is a modern invention. To understand why, you need to understand what a "homeland" really means. It is a deeply charged political concept which appeals to the most basic instincts of the human mind, which at its worst can be used as a tool to justify making people do terrible things to other people in its name. We are all human beings, and very much alike, and only fight due to the burden of history as we have been taught to perceive it.

Oncenawhile (talk) 16:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, then let me be one more voice in the chorus telling you that you know nothing about Judaism then. Do you also go and tell the Pope he's not Catholic enough? It is extremely ludicrous and insulting to say that the homeland is a new concept. It is not something that you should be publicly agreeing with. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:32, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Can you prove it? Oncenawhile (talk) 17:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, I've heard Catholic monks exclaim, on the election of Francesco:'Finally a Catholic Pope!' In any case, Judaism, like any great religion, is a very complex culture. I've yet to see an editor in here showing much awareness of its vast diversity. Most editors think it is interchangeable with modern Israel or Zionism.Nishidani (talk) 18:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think anyone said that, but what was said was that Israel as a homeland is not a modern invention and it's insulting for someone to come around and tell Jews that it is. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:30, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

One can keep using this as a forum to give one's opinions about one's own ethnic group, but no one should presume to be a spokesman for others of the group. If rabbi Isidore Loeb wrote:'nothing proves that the present-day Jews who reside in most of the European states are the descendants of the ancient Jews of Palestine and strictly of the Semitic race', and it was published in a Jewish journal, and aroused absolutely no controversy, it was because in France, Austria and Germany in his time, before Zionism took off, it was a normal view to entertain. I've read it very frequently in history books concerning that period. So, how can you state it is insulting for the homeland concept to be denied, when it was entertained widely by Jews before 1948? (Of course I know it is grounded in Jewish liturgy, which a community for millennia recited: but when given the choice of a new homeland in the 20th century, the overwhelming choice in eastern Europe was, rationally in my view, the United States, or, as it was called then 'the New Zion'. When black slaves sang for centuries O Canaan, sweet Canaan, I am bound for the land of Canaan they didn't think this meant they'd jump the next boat for Palestine.)Nishidani (talk) 19:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

So you found one rabbi, one whom I never heard of and is not part of mainstream Jewish thought. As for going to the US over the Holy Land, I'm not sure how serious you are trying to be. One very major reason why people went to the US was because it was safer and more established. There were people who tried or went to Israel but the community was poorer, the country was poorer and it was not a feasible solution to migrate to. Even so, that never took away aspirations for the homeland, just that it's not feasible at this time. So again, to say that the homeland is a new invention is wrong and starts to approach a point that should not be approached, to delegitimze the Jewish homeland. No matter when and no matter where, Jews pray to return to their homeland. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:31, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

So you don't know anything of the history of Judaism's relationship to Zionism. I've updated for you some details at Timeline of anti-Zionism. You think I've found one example. I said Isidore Loeb's view was a commonplace, and instead of taking the hint, you just assumed it was a one-offer. Well, yawn, here's another.

Adolf Jellinek emphasized that ‘Jews did not have any national characteristics, as such but “thanks to their universalism they adapt and absorb qualities from the nations in whose midst they are born and educated.’ ‘We are at home in Europe and regard ourselves as children of the lands in which we were born and raised, whose languages we speak, and whose cultures make up our intellectual substance. We are Germans, Frenchmen, Magyars, Italians, and so forth, with every fiber of our being. We have long ceased to be true, thoroughbred Semites, and we have long ago lost sense of Hebrew nationality. Robert Wistrich ‘Zionism and Its Religious Critics in Fin–De-Siècle Vienna,‘ in S, Almog et al. Zionism and Religion, Brandeis/UPNE 1998 pp.140-158 pp.142)

I.e. please focus on sourcing, and drop the guesswork.Nishidani (talk) 21:31, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what homeland means.

Can you point me to any pre-Zionism usage of an equivalent phrase to "Jewish homeland" in Jewish writings or prayer?

Oncenawhile (talk) 21:23, 14 June 2016 (UTC) This has already been done, fyi. Drsmoo (talk) 23:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

You tried but failed. It is the original text that matters, from mainstream sources. In all of the Sefaria Project you found nothing to support modern usage of Jewish Homeland. If it is so easy and so obvious, surely you can prove me wrong. At the moment this feels like avoidance tactics because you don't want to admit failure. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

So aggressive and uncivil, and so wrong. I love the excuses though, I'm not really interesting in "convincing you" even though I already have most likely, as I have enough experience to know when someone will make up any excuse in order to have the last word. Ie ""oh that one doesn't count because, hes a mystic, mystics dont count now, new rules. Oh, they said it's so important that one should live there even if there are more non-jews? Well then it can't be a homeland, those are the new rules." After that I stopped caring because it was clear you'd been answered and would just say anything in order to continue arguing. Drsmoo (talk) 12:24, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

You are overinterpreting disagreement with you in personal terms. The problem is not convincing yourself, but seeing if others disagree with you and how to resolve the points of contention. I can see no aggression in Oncenawhile's remarks, as opposed to careful evaluation of sources. I happen to agree with him. You have no consensus here.Nishidani (talk) 13:19, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

It's an assessment of content, not personal. Drsmoo (talk) 13:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

@Drsmoo: below is a summary of our discussion on this topic as I see it:

• Drsmoo: ""The Jewish Homeland in Israel" concept is core to the Jewish religion. It is not a modern invention"
• Oncenawhile: "OK, please provide proof"
• Drsmoo: "I have searched through thousands of works of Judaism on the Sefaria Project and have found these three relevant quotes"
• Oncenawhile: "In the original Hebrew, the first two quotes do not support this at all. And the third quote is not from a source representing mainstream Judaism"
• Drsmoo: "How dare you question me, I don't wish to continue this discussion. I also intend to stop you having this discussion with other editors such as WarKosign and Sir Joseph."

It doesn't matter to me or anyone that your initial attempt to provide proof for your position did not hold water. But giving up the discussion so quickly it just looks like you are running away. Why not show us all the proof if it is so obvious.

Oncenawhile (talk) 15:40, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

• , no, it's just that it's not worth it to discuss with someone so clearly biased. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:43, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Your inaccurate assessment aside, if we as Wikipedia editors chose not to discuss things with other editors every time we perceived them to be biased, these Talk pages would be empty. In our limited interactions I have come to perceive you (Sir Joseph) to be one of the I-P arena's most exteme POV pushers, yet I believe there is value in us discussing to benefit the encyclopedia. It is precisely our diverse viewpoints that can make Wikipedia such a valuable resource. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:07, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

2015 discussion

Does anyone else feel like the article has at least some pro-Zionist bias, or is it just me?? Shiningroad (talk) 11:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

@Shiningroad: Is there any specific section you would like to point out as possibly biased ? “WarKosign” 11:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

This article is definitely biased toward Zionism. Every legitimate criticism of Zionism is basically dismissed by referring to various proponents of Zionism who explain away and rationalize the obvious self-contradictions and faults of Zionist ideology, such as its racist underpinnings, it's inherently undemocratic and colonialist nature. There is no real reference to what Zionism has brought about in the real world: the effects of Zionism on the indigenous Palestinian population, the apartheid conditions under which they are living, the brutal confinement and periodic bombardment of Gaza. There should be a whole section devoted to ethno-nationalism in general, of which Zionism is one exemplar, comparing it to other forms of ethno-nationalism. There could also be discussion about how Zionism has come to be accepted while other forms of ethno-nationalism (South African apartheid, Nazism, etc.) are condemned. This article could be improved and made more neutral by adding more perspectives and commentary critical of Zionism. I would suggest including statements about Zionism from Palestinian-American scholar Joseph Massad, from journalist Ali Abunimah, and from Professor Steven Salaita. All of these writers clearly distinguish between anti-Zionism and anti-semitism, as do many Jewish writers. Mention should also be given to contemporary Jewish groups like A Jewish Voice for Peace which are actively working to raise American Jewish awareness about the effects of Zionism that run contrary to values of democracy and mutual respect amongst peoples and religions. [User: jasper good] 19:38, 1 Jan 2016 (UTC)

Note that according to WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 you as a new editor are not allowed to edit this talk page, so your post above should be reverted or at least ignored. “WarKosign” 21:35, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes it is bias as it supports a poisition that Zionism is alien to Judiasm. How about this section? This section is wrong OUTRIGHT and the title doesn't match the content:

QUOTE: Religious anti-Zionism amongst the Jewish Talmudic

Many other Hasidic groups in Jerusalem, most famously the Satmar Hasidim, as well as the larger movement they are part of, the Edah HaChareidis, are strongly anti-Zionist. One of the best known Hasidic opponents of all forms of modern political Zionism was Hungarian rebbe and Talmudic scholar Joel Teitelbaum. In his view, the current State of Israel is contrariwise to Judaism, because it was founded by people who included some anti-religious personalities, and were in apparent violation of the traditional notion that Jews should wait for the Jewish Messiah.

04:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)04:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)04:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)04:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)04:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)04:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)04:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)04:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)04:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)04:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)04:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)04:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)04:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)~

Please define "Jewish Talmudic".... This whole thing is like a page out of the Elders of Zion. 96.57.23.82 (talk) 04:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

It does feel like that, yet on the other hand it is a page about Zionism. I assume you mean it shouldn't be biased toward anything, but Zionism has slightly accomplished it goal, so it only seems to be biased because it does describes the complete actions of Zionism, which are more on the winning side of the coin flip — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.183.252.209 (talk) 18:53, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

"Another less common meaning is the political support for the State of Israel by non-Jews."

Could we get a source for this. I feel like it's a endorsing misuse of the word. Supporting Israeli citizens and as a whole the country of Israel does not equal being a Zionist. It's a classification extremists use so as to call people anti-Zionist if they criticize Israeli politics. Should not be on the Wikipedia page if it's such a weak connection with reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.111.101.38 (talk) 21:14, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Oxford: "A movement for (originally) the re-establishment and (now) the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel."

Webster: "an international movement originally for the establishment of a Jewish national or religious community in Palestine and later for the support of modern Israel"

reference.com: "a political movement for the establishment and support of a national homeland for Jews in Palestine, now concerned chiefly with the development of the modern state of Israel".

Nowhere it says whether the support comes from Jews or non-Jews, so perhaps we can drop the "by non-Jews" part. Anyone can be a Zionist. “WarKosign” 07:23, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Ancestral Homeland in wikipedia's neutral voice

Please could the various editors who are pushing this please read this chapter:

• Kaiser, Robert J. (2004). "Homeland Making and the Territorialization of National Identity". Ethnonationalism in the Contemporary World: Walker Connor and the Study of Nationalism. Psychology Press. pp. 229–. ISBN 978-0-415-33273-6.

Such a concept is non-neutral for every nationalism. Zionism is no different.

Oncenawhile (talk) 10:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

References

The jewish people originated in Israel- their language, religion, culture, identity, was born there. It's all explained and sourced very well in the article Jews. This article isn't saying "jews were there first and zionism liberated them from the oppressive yoke of the arab and british colonialist squatters". That would be non-nuetral. The article is simply acknowledging a fact. Saying "their self-declared homeland" is weasel. "Homeland" is probably better than ancestral homeland for nuetral voice though, less frills.--Monochrome_Monitor 20:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@Monochrome Monitor: Hey, Monitor. Well, I would say that the problems begin with your first words: "The jewish people". The notion of people is completely modern. This Jewish nation you speak did not exist – could not exist – until modern times, and even then only in the minds of Jewish nationalists.

There is a reason that nationalism is regarded as such an impoverished political concept. Einstein, for example, famously regarded it as "an infantile disease". As always it seems, I find myself unable to disagree with the great man! --BowlAndSpoon (talk) 21:31, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

That's patently false. You obviously know nothing about Jewish history and nothing about Albert Einstein (on the contrary I know quite a bit about both, including general and special relativity).

Friend, it is your who remains doggedly ignorant of just what utter garbage nationalism, not to mention Einstein. Here is the Einstein quote on nationalism (and others). Have you even read Hobsbawn's slim overview of the topic? --BowlAndSpoon (talk) 22:16, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

"I am deeply moved by the offer from our State of Israel [to serve as President], and at once saddened and ashamed that I cannot accept it. All my life I have dealt with objective matters, hence I lack both the natural aptitude and the experience to deal properly with people and to exercise official functions. For these reasons alone I should be unsuited to fulfill the duties of that high office, even if advancing age was not making increasing inroads on my strength. I am the more distressed over these circumstances because my relationship to the Jewish people has become my strongest human bond, ever since I became fully aware of our precarious situation among the nations of the world."--Monochrome_Monitor 21:46, 13 June 2016 :::@BowlAndSpoon: If you want to know anything about the ancient origins of the modern Jewish (UTC) people you can begin by reading about Israelites. “WarKosign” 06:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

WarKoSign. You should know by now that Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources.Nishidani (talk) 16:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Does this mean you are saying that "re-" established and "ancestral homeland" relate to the Israelite state(s)? Oncenawhile (talk) 07:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I was referring to BowlAndSpoon's false claim that the notion of Jewish people is modern. However, you are right: the historical record that tracks the origin of the Jewish people all the way back to Israelites and clearly shows that Canaan/Land of Israel/Palestine (region) is indeed "ancestral homeland" of the modern Jewish people, so re-establishment is the correct term to use. “WarKosign” 08:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Again, Wikipedia articles cannot be sourced in an argument. We reflect what the best available book sources say (which are rarely used in these articles).Nishidani (talk) 16:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok. I think that is where most who use "reestablished" are coming from as well. There is a problem though. Whilst "Israelites" are considered to have existed, scholarship simply uses the term Israelites to refer to the people and culture which inhabited the region at the time. There is no evidence that these people were really Israelites in the form that we know them from the Bible. The most important part of this is that there is no archaeological evidence for the Israelite states described in the Bible. So in Wikipedia's neutral voice we cannot talk about reestablishing a state whose only evidence is Biblical. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Apparently you missed these well-supported bit from the lead of Israelites: "The Israelites ... inhabited part of Canaan" and "The prevailing academic opinion today is that the Israelites ... evolved into the modern Jews". Again, re-established refers to a rather vague "national home", not to a specific state or an exact territory. Note that I'm talking about history, not religious narrative. “WarKosign” 09:34, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Again do you realize that this argument is fideistic? Why persist in this strategy? Every editor on Wikipedia knows it is not a Reliable Source? Don't believe me. Look at the evidence.

The prevailing academic opinion today is that the Israelites, who eventually evolved into the modern Jews and Samaritans, were an outgrowth of the indigenous Canaanites who had resided in the area since the 8th millennium BCE.[7][8][9][10].

(7) Tubb 1998, pp. 13–14 Please note that there is no indication in the bibliography on that page as to what book is being referred to. It happens to be Jonathan Tubb, The Canaanites, University of Oklahoma Press 1998 pp.13-14. On those pages, Tubbs states that Canaanite identity is not Israelites alone: it has been subsumed under many names, Phoenicians, Ammonites, Moabites, Israelites, etc., and that a speaker of classical Hebrew, but not of modern Hebrew, would have no problem in making himself understood there. There is no mention of the transition to modern Jews (WP:OR)

(8) McNutt, Paula (1999). Reconstructing the Society of Ancient Israel. Westminster John Knox Press. p.47 (failed verification. Fraudulent use of sources. There is no mention of the link to modern Jews: WP:OR)

(9) K. L. Noll, Canaan and Israel in Antiquity: An Introduction, A&C Black, 2001 p.164:‘It would seems that in the eyes of Merneptah’s artisans, Israel was a Canaanite group indistinguishable from all other Canaanite groups.’ ‘It is likely that Merneptah’s Israel was a group of Canaanites located in the Jezreel Valley.’ (failed verification. There is no remark here that the Canaanites became Israelites became modern Jews. To the contrary Noll argued (he doesn't say 'the academic consensus is') that Israelites were one of several Canaanite groups. Ther is no mention of the link to modern Jews. WP:OR.

(10) Stefan Paas Creation and Judgement: Creation Texts in Some Eighth Century Prophets, BRILL, 2003 pp.110-121, esp.144 (failed verification. There is no mention of modern Jews in this study of creation tales in the prophets. WP:OR

So kindly drop this bad habit of using Wikipedia articles, esp. on this region, as sources for your 'information'. Most of them are bullshit, so far, unfortunately, full of WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and POV fantasies mainly edited by people with a political mission and zero knowledge of the topics.Nishidani (talk) 16:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

You now wrote "vague national home", yet when I wrote "vague sense of origins" above, you and Drsmoo disagreed.... Vague is right, and is precisely the problem.

As to Israelites, I agree with that - but the question you are missing is "who does academic consensus think Israelites were?" As I wrote above, scholarship simply uses the term Israelites to refer to the people and culture which inhabited the region at the time. There is no evidence that these people were really Israelites in the form that we know them from the Bible. So concluding that Israelites inhabited Canaan is a circular conclusion - archaeological Israelites are defined as the ancient inhabitants of certain regions of Canaan. And that some Israelites evolved into Jews doesn't mean that Jews inherit rights to the whole Israelite region. These Israelites also evolved into Samaritans, Galileans, Ituraeans, Edomites, etc. Some Israelites became Jews, but Israelites and Jews are not the same thing.

Either way, the key point is that Israelite states are (a) unknown outside the Bible, and (b) not the same as a Jewish state. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Again, I'm not discussion religion, only historic facts. People historian call Israelites lived in Canaan. Their descendants continuously inhabiting the area for centuries. Their modern descendants, the Jews consider the general area of historical Canaan their ancestral homeland, and I don't see how anyone can dispute it - it's a historical fact that the land was homeland of their ancestors.

There is nothing vague about sense of origin. The origin is an accepted historical fact. The vagueness comes from incomplete knowledge of the historical borders of the homeland, and of course it changed over time. You are insisting on territory of the southern kingdom - why not the area ruled by the Hasmonean dynasty ? “WarKosign” 10:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

"Their modern descendents" should be "Some of their modern descendents", specifically the ones that lived in Judea. Your logic is like saying that the Garden of Eden is my homeland because my earliest ancestors were said in the Bible to have come from there. Jacob is considered by secular scholarship to be no less fictional than Adam and Eve. This is the connection you are missing.

As to the Hasmonean state, that's exactly my point. The homeland of the Hasmoneans was the small principality of Judea. They expanded for a short period of 50 years. Territorial expansion does not make a "homeland". Oncenawhile (talk) 10:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I did not know Garden of Eden was a historic location. Was anything interesting found during excavations ? Any fossils of fruit trees, or perhaps of talking snakes ?

Who said Jacob was a historical figure ? Historical Israelites were named after Biblical Jacob by modern historians, but there is no reason to assume this is how they called themselves.

Whatever was the exact extent of the ancestral homeland, it's well established that it (mostly) corresponds to (a part of) modern Palestine (region), and this is why Zionist chose to concentrate their efforts to re-established their homeland in roughly ("vaguely") the same place. If this is the problem, we can think of a way to clarify that ancestral homeland borders were likely very different from modern Israel. “WarKosign” 11:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok thanks, appreciate this. If we are to use "re-establish" we need to be clearer on what we have in mind as the historical precedent. Wikipedia can't accurately refer to the Israelite states as being either "Jewish" or historical. Which leaves us with the Hasmonean state. It would be helpful if we could find some scholarly sources which tackle this question. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:23, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

And Jews have considered themselves to be a nation longer than the Greeks. Jewish nationalism is an ancient concept. --Monochrome_Monitor 21:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The assertion is an ideologeme. For one the concept of 'nationalism' over the last century, has been considered to be a peculiarly modern, post Enlightenment concept not to be anachronistically retrodated to antiquity. (b) Modern nationalists the world over have tried to underwrite the antiquity of their 'nationalism' by citing material from Chinese, Japanese, Greek, Indian classical sources etc.etc., but they are referring to different realities, and in discussing this scholars typically put 'nationalism' in inverted commas, flagging its disputed nature for early polities. (d) There is ample trace of Greek 'cultural nationalism' from the defeat of Persia 479BCE era onwards but whatever it was was different in being 'cultural' not 'ethnic' or 'territorial'. Alexander 'Hellenized' the peoples he subjected. (e) so-called Jewish 'nationalism' was a religious, not a pan-ethnic concept in its 5th century roots: it consisted of a religious definition, excluding 2 categories (I) Samaritans, who dominated in Samaria (ii) the am ha-eretz, the majority of farmers, who failed to follow the strict regimen of religious regulations set down by Ezra and Nehemiah: that too fails the 'nationalist criteria' because it is not-inclusive, but exclusive of the same ethnos; (f) Judaism's theological thinking about identity arose out of memories of an early Israelitic state in parts of Canaan, not all of Canaan. The religious definition of that territory is not all of Canaan. One could cite dozens of other points, but Jews are descended from a Middle Eastern population, which, by OCE, did not appear to consider 'Judea' (for that was where the idea was fixed, not Samaria, or Galilee, or Philistia) as its 'homeland' as we now take that. The branch populations have a meme that insists on that origin. It does not correspond to an historic reality, but is a belief cultivated for millennia in the cradle of rabbinical thinking which forged this sense of collective identity. In other words, this is a religious belief, not an historical fact.Nishidani (talk) 10:44, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The simple solution is to write 'for Jews', or 'in Judaism . .is considered', etc.. Anythingt else is just doctrinal. The encyclopedia cites used from the Jews, refer to conversion. Converted people by definition don't hail from the ancestral homeland.Nishidani (talk) 11:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

We all know "palestine" used to mean something different than it does today and that the term was appropriated towards a specific political end. It's anachronistic by today's usage.--Monochrome_Monitor 05:07, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Everything in this field is 'anachronistic' beginning with the fantasies of the Bible.Nishidani (talk) 08:25, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

forced exodus in lead

I removed the word forced from the lead, which Nishidani reverted, without explanation. The link points to Palestinian Exodus of..., and removing forced moves it inline with the article title and is more neutral, especially for a lead. What do you all think? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:48, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

The article linked to doesn't even mention forced, especially in the lead. There are many reasons for the exodus and calling it a forced exodus is extreme POV. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:51, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

For more information, you can also see Causes_of_the_1948_Palestinian_exodus#.22Arab_leaders.27_endorsement_of_flight.22_explanation which shows that in many cases it was not forced. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:20, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

See my page. Sir Joe forgot to read beyond that section.Nishidani (talk) 20:16, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Irrelevant, the fact that there are other opinions means that it is NNPOV to say Forced in the lead. Simple as that. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:22, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

No, that isnt true. nableezy - 20:24, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, thats a view that has lost favor as more sources have become available, most notably the release of Israeli archives. The "exodus" was largely forced, through physical and psychological means, and I dont see how saying "forced" is a problem here. Id actually prefer expulsion rather than forced exodus. nableezy - 20:24, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Everyone knows that deportation and expulsion has been a declared or practical policy of Zionism since 1948. You can spin it as you will, but this is repeated historical behavior.

(A)700,000 (they just fled?)

(B) 1967 Palestinian exodus? These are the results of an international enquiry

• 81 On the basis of the testimony placed before it or obtained by it in the course of its investigations, the Special Committee had been led to conclude that the Government of Israel is deliberately carrying out policies aimed at preventing the population of the occupied territories from returning to their homes and forcing those who are in their homes in the occupied territories to leave, either by direct means such as deportation or indirectly by attempts at undermining their morale or through the offer of special inducements, all with the ultimate object of annexing and settling the occupied territories. The Special Committee considers the acts of the Government of Israel in furtherance of these policies to be the most serious violation of human rights that has come to its attention. The evidence shows that this situation has deteriorated since the last mission of the Special Committee in 1970
• 50. Unlike the policy of annexation, which is openly admitted and declared by member of the Government of Israel and by Israeli leaders, there is no similar admission or declaration of policy in regard to deportation. The oral evidence of witnesses appearing before the Special Committee, together with the established fact that a substantial number of individuals have been deported, clearly demonstrates the existence of a policy of deportation on the part of the Government of Israel. Although, in effecting these deportations, the Government of Israel invokes the Defence (Emergency) Regulations, 1945, which have been extended to the occupied territories, such deportations constitute a breach of the provisions of article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The Special Committee has already pronounced itself on these Regulations in its first report (A/8089, paras. 57–60) and it maintains the same opinion it held then, namely, that the Regulations are ultra vires the Fourth Geneva Convention.REPORT OF THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE ISRAELI PRACTICES AFFECTING THE HUMAN RIGHTS OF THE POPULATION OF THE OCCUPIED TERRITORIES A/8389 5 October 1971

(C)'A 2011 research report conducted by the European Union noted that in 1967 between 200,000 and 320,000 Palestinians lived in the Jordan Valley, most of which is in Area C. But demolition of Palestinian homes and prevention of new buildings has seen the number drop to 56,000, the report said. In a similar period, it added, the Jewish population in Area C has grown from 1,200 to 310,000.' Ben Lynfield Palestinians Pressured To Leave 'Area C' of Occupied West Bank by Israel The Forward 5 March5, 2013

All of this should be in a section entitled "Zionism and Deportation".Nishidani (talk) 21:18, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Your sources do not say that the exodus was completely - or even mostly - forced. They support the notion that the exodus was at least partially caused by actions of the zionists (but do not say it explicitly), however there are many other proposed reasons. One cannot pick their favorite POV and write it in wikipedia voice. “WarKosign” 12:16, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

The text should state that an explicit decision was made to prevent the refugees from returning. There is in fact no argument about that at all since the cabinet minutes, etc etc, were published long ago. People often flee from conflict (even though for sure most of these fled out of fear or coercion) but what turns them into refugees is the inability to return. Zero^talk 12:37, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Preventing from returning is not the same as forcefully expelling. “WarKosign” 13:00, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

(ec) As I said, wiki pages are evidence of nothing, except lazy editing, and are not an argument. Morris found only a minute number of villages exoduses were precipitated by Arab advice to move out of the warzone temporarily. All the rest were the result of a war, a war for land, driven by evictions. The argument that there are other causes fails because in every later occasion, Israel has extended the eviction and deportation strategy: in 1967 (ask anyone over 60 who was in Bethlehem in 1967 about the trucks and buses lined up, with megaphones telling them to get on and be trucked to Jordan or else, so too Gaza asnd the Golan), and in the Jordan Valley and Area C ever since. Ethnic cleansing is fundamental to Zionism. There is, unlike the rumours re 1948, absolutely no evidence that the massive effluxes of Palestinians from Israeli controlled areas since 1967 is caused by flight, panic, orders from leaders or 'alternatiove explanations'. The overwhelming evidence since 1917 shows that this is (and it is a logical consequence of Zionist pragmatism) willed, and implemented. Under Israeli administration, Palestinians are throttled until they leave, which in the UN 1971 report, is stated to be a tactic to purge the land of Arabs. Even Ari Shavit admits it now: 'Lydda is our black box. In it lies the dark secret of Zionism' (50-70,000) in just one episode, though it's no secret, just an embarrassment to the bien-pensants. Nishidani (talk) 12:52, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

We are talking specifically about 1948. The lead links to 1948 Palestinian exodus and calling it "forced" while it's only a single POV is a violation of WP:NPOV. “WarKosign” 13:00, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

You're not of course denying the fact that numerous massive exoduses, like just one incident involving about 10% of the total of those who left were at gunpoint and under threat, and deliberately, as Morris states, induced to flee, of course? If a compromise is desired, of course one can imagine any number of tweaks, putting after exodus, with due sourcing, phrases like 'often induced to flee'/'frequently compelled to abandoned their villages'/ 'left the warzone and were denied the right to return' etc. Just saying 'exodus' says nothing, except reminding the average reader that, well, Moses chose to leave Egypt, and when Moses's great-great-great.nth factor-descendants came back, Palestinians chose to leave Palestine. It's one of those absurdly emotively charged words that prefers religious resonances, of the sacred, than objective description.Nishidani (talk) 13:20, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

There is evidence that exodus was at least partially forced. It is not enough to say that it was forced in entirety. “WarKosign” 13:28, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

And that's all I've been saying, but apparently according to Nishidani, if you disagree with him you are just too incompetent to contribute. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:49, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

WK and SJ, you are peddling a straw man. Noone has said that every single Palestinian who left was forced out. The relevant statement is that it was mostly forced, which is uncontroversial and widely supported. Oncenawhile (talk) 14:39, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

That is exactly our point, In the lead it says "forced exodus" as if it was entirely forced. That is why using exodus minus the forced is more appropriate in the lead. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:51, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

No. I respect anyone who can introduce material from good sources, to the articles, or to buttress a talk page position. I read right past opinions. The argument about WP:NPOV doesn't stand for a very simple reason. Read the lead context:

(a)Advocates of Zionism view it as a national liberation movement for the repatriation of a persecuted people residing as minorities in a variety of nations to their ancestral homeland.[9][10][11] (b)Critics of Zionism view it as a colonialist,[12] racist[13] and exceptionalist[14] ideology that led advocates to violence during Mandatory Palestine, followed by the forced exodus of Palestinians, and the subsequent denial of their human rights

This is statement of the 2 contrasting POVs. (a) represents the language of defenders of Zionism; (b) represents the language of those critical of Zionism.

We are dealing with a weighted adjective in (b) which is paralleled by a weighted adjective ('persecuted' since when were American/English/Canadian Jews/post war European Jews making aliyah, for example, persecuted? I like neither sentence, but the terms used are sourceable. Zionism for 50 years was never conceived of as a National Liberation Movement, that was just late jargon hijacked from anti-colonial movements in the Third World to make out that what began as a colonial project (when colonialism was normal) was its antithesis, when colonialism became disreputable. But I don't fuss over this, as I haven't tried to rewrite sentence (b) as

an 'ideology that pursue(s)(d) the dispossession, coerced or otherwise, of the indigenous Palestinians of their land and rights in order to establish a nation in the Middle East open exclusively for Jewish immigration from the diaspora.'

This is better, in my view, because there have been several exoduses, and to seize on that of 1948, while ignoring the 100-325,000 (estimates vary depending on how you define displacement) who were pushed off their land in 1967, and the massive depopulation of Area C ever since, is to characterize as a 'one-off' tragic event something that lies in the very core of the project of Zionism. There was no one 'exodus'. It is ongoing as a policy, as any reader of the newspapers knows.

In short, you can't have it both ways, allowing one rosy internal definition of Zionism without linguistic restraint, while challenging the other anti-definition because it is not 'neutral'.Nishidani (talk) 15:26, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Since this sentence describes opponent's POV, it's acceptable to call it forced. Two minor issues I see:

1. Do the sources specifically show that opponents of Zionism consider exodus forced ? It makes sense that there is a major correlation between holders of the two POVs, yet it seems like an unsourced assumption.
2. It's a tad unclear that "forced" is part of POV description and is not said in wikipedia voice. “WarKosign” 17:57, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Does anyone else feel like the lede seems unusually detailed in this regard for what is appropriate given an article summary? Should we move some of it to its own section? BabyJonas (talk) 19:05, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Opposition and support are two major sections in the article, so it's not undue to mention them in the lead. Perhaps the descriptions can be a bit shorter. “WarKosign” 19:59, 23 June 2016 (UTC)