Talk:Zionism as settler colonialism

"was not part of the process of imperial expansion in search of power and markets."
schould be deleted becouse of beeing false. Weizmann letter 1914: “… should Palestine fall within the British sphere of influence, and should Britain encourage a Jewish settlement there, as a British dependency, we could have in 20 to 30 years a million Jews out there – perhaps more; they would … form a very effective guard for the Suez Canal.”

(1916): "The British Cabinet is not only sympathetic toward the Palestinian aspirations of the Jews, but would like to see these aspirations realized" … “England … would have in the Jews the best possible friends, who would be the best national interpreters of ideas in the eastern countries and would serve as a bridge between the two civilizations. That again is not a material argument, but certainly it ought to carry great weight with any politician who likes to look 50 years ahead" The zionist movment did often apeal to british national interrest and Britten. And the succes of the Zionist project was obviously in there interrest concerning markets in Asia (espacially India). not so sure if this is the right place sry if not but the statement ist simply wrong. Also see rashid khalidi newest book. 109.43.177.222 (talk) 05:42, 7 November 2023 (UTC)


 * One might add that Ronald Storrs, the British military governor, drew specific parallels with Ireland, stating that Zionism provided the opportunity to form "a little loyal Jewish Ulster" (See page 8 of this work). Iskandar323 (talk) 08:05, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

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, 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 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. Zerotalk 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 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. Zerotalk 01:58, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Masalha 2012 p. 60: Levivich (talk) 19:27, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

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)