Active discussions
Zionism is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Article milestones
December 15, 2003Featured article candidatePromoted
November 10, 2004Featured article reviewDemoted
July 26, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
August 28, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Former featured article
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team  
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
 ???  Quality: not yet rated
 ???  Importance: not yet rated

Efraim KarshEdit

Karsh is being quoted here for a piece he wrote for Middle East Forum, a think tank run by Daniel Pipes (via its journal, Middle East Quarterly, which was previously not peer reviewed at all and now claims to be peer reviewed in an extremely selective way, unambiguously stating they use only reviewers that align with them ideologically.) This is not a mainstream publication; placing Karsh's opinions in that part of the article effectively weights the position of a think tank against the position of the entire scholarly mainstream, which is plainly WP:UNDUE. I am particularly concerned by the edit requesting that he be retained "for balance." Balance is about portraying scholarship in accordance with its weight, not about deciding that you dislike the scholarly consensus and digging up one guy from a think tank who says otherwise. This looks to me like textbook WP:FALSEBALANCE. If Karsh's opinions are widely-held, it should be easy to find other people who hold them, published in more mainstream journals with more traditional peer-review, and to find broader summaries of that line of thought that are actually worthy of being weighted against the rest of that paragraph. --Aquillion (talk) 09:48, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Can you see where in the article Karsh makes the claim being referenced in our article? I can’t see it. It would be helpful to understand what Karsh based his claim on. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:34, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
This is the original insertion of the text and sources by TheTimesAreAChanging.
Onceinawhile (talk) 10:45, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Karsh's article "Rewriting Israel¡s history" is part of his ongoing polemic against the New Historians. I think they all replied to his article, Shlaim's rebuttal reply is here As far as I am aware, it is now generally accepted that the running away/orders narrative is not an accurate portrayal of history.Selfstudier (talk) 11:03, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. Some of the debate is captured at Efraim_Karsh#Palestine_Betrayed and 1948_Palestinian_exodus#Changes_after_the_advent_of_the_"New_Historians"_–_Late_1980s
I believe this is really a fringe theory.
Most importantly though, its relevance to this article is tangential, so it needs to cross a high hurdle to be due weight here.
Onceinawhile (talk) 14:00, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
I agree. Karsh is not so much "post revisionist" as he is "counter-revisionist", and his opinion -- even if properly sourced -- doesn't carry much weight against the narrative which has been well-developed by the New Historians. As I said in an edit summary, if a bunch of historian can be found who agree with Karshs reversion, then they can be put into the mix and perhaps the counter-claim would become DUE. As it is now though, it's Karsh vs. everyone else, and it should be removed from the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:31, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
It seems we have consensus here. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:41, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Beyond My Ken, New_Historians#Criticism is one place to look. Karsh is not some fringe fellow. He is the founding professor of a King's College department. The reason why nobody is debating here, is because there is no point in doing so in the IP conflict area, the "other side" has the numbers , and that is how it works in Wikipedia. That's why you can't use Wikipedia as a valid source for your college thesis or journal, it's biased. Same here. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:58, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
His theory as to the running away/orders narrative is no longer the accepted narrative. The debate has moved on from denial to "we had a good excuse for doing what we did". That's the new battleground, Karsh's stuff is Old Historian.(that's not the same as saying he is fringe).Selfstudier (talk) 16:50, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Selfstudier, read the criticism section of the New Historian, especially the part that Morris himself criticized the New Historians and reversed his own writings. I know Karsh isn't going to go in, but let's not fool ourselves and say New Historians aren't ideologues and are pushing an agenda, and Wikipedia's articles in this area are biased. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:21, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
I have read it and Morris. Morris has not reversed himself (the conclusions in Birth are still the same conclusions), he has simply decided, post Intifada, that the behavior he uncovered was justifiable and that is where the argument is now. There isn't a club of card carrying New Historians nowadays, what there is is a lot of follow on scholarship from Newer Historians that have endorsed most, if not all, of the earlier findings. I don't actually care myself whether Karsh is included here or there because most people know he's not relevant on this sort of thing, I just don't really know what it has to do with "Zionism", nothing at all as far as I can see.Selfstudier (talk) 17:44, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
[EC] @Sir Joseph, Nobody is arguing that Karsh is "some fringe fellow". We have a decision to make, however. Fairly outlining the different positions would involve going into detail and fairly considerable length. At the end of the day, it's questionable whether it would be worth doing that in a general article on Zionism, questionable because, at least in the view of some editors, it would inevitably make the traditional Zionist version of events, as championed by Karsh, look like propaganda. In fairness, the choice about whether to go down that route should be given to you. I shouldn't think that the end result would be as you might hope, though.
Here's what David Hirst wrote in The Gun and the Olive Branch, the first edition of which came out in 1977, more than ten years before Morris coined the term "New Historians" (page 260 and following, chapter "Gun Zionism"):
"Moreover, when it comes to the all-important question of the Palestinian refugees, the Zionists profess that their consciences are equially clear, for it was not they who drove them out, but their own leaders who ordered them to flee.
"The Zionist version of the Palestinian exodus is a myth manufactured after the cataclysm took place. If the Zionists could show that the refugees had really fled without cause, at the express instructions of their own politicians, they would greatly erode the world's sympathy for their plight - and, in consequence, the pressure on themselves to allow them to return. Thus in public speeches and scholarly-looking pamphlets they peddled this myth the world over. It was not until 1959 that the Palestinian scholar, Walid Khalidi, exposed it for what is is. His painstaking researches were independently corroborated by an Irish scholar, Erskine Childers, two years later. Together they demonstrated that the myth was not just a gross misrepresentation of accepted or even plausible facts; the very 'facts' themselves had been invented. Orders for the evacuation of the civilian population had not simply been issued, the Zionists said, they had been broadcast over over Arab radio stations. One had come from the Mufti himself. This was the cornerstone of the Zionist case. Yet when these two scholars took the trouble to examine the record - to go through the specially opened archives of Arab governments, contemporary Arabic newspapers and the radio monitoring reports of the both the BBC and the CIA - they found that no such orders had been issued, let alone broadcast, and that when challenged to produce chapter-and-verse evidence, the date and origin of just one such order, the Zionists, with all the apparatus of the State of Israel now at their disposal, were quite unable to do so. They found, on the contrary, that Arab and Palestinian authorities had repeatedly called on the people to stay put and that the Arab radio servies had consistently belittled the true extent of Zionist attrocities. Indeed, it appears that, if anything, they expected of the civilian population, helpless before the Zionist onslaught, a much greater fortitude than they legirimately should have. Far from urging his people to flee, the Mufti was so alarmed at the incipient exodus that he sent this cable to one of his staff: "The emigration of children and others from Palestine to Syria is detrimental to our interest. Contact the proper authorities in Damascus and Birut to prevent it ..." Arab governments took steps to forcibly repatriate able-bodied Palestinians who had left the country, and Arab newspapers grew positively insulting about them. All this was corroborated by the Zionist radio services themselves. From time to time they carried reports of Arab efforts to prevent an exodus; when the exodus took place they duly reported it without mention of evacuation orders, and even when they came to refuting Arab claims that the Palestinians had been physically driven from their homes, they used all manner of argument except the one in question.
"It was only a year later, when the refugee problem was beginning to impinge upon the world's conscience, the the Zionists began to develop their whole post facto thesis. Professor Khalidi traces its first elaborate appearance to two mimeographed pamphlets - almost certainly the work of Joseph Schechtman, the Irgun-Revisionist biographer of Jabotinsky - which were disseminated by the Israeli Information Office in New York and subsequently incorporated in a memorandum submitted by by nineteen prominent Americans, including the poest Macleish and Niebuhr the theologian, to the UN."
    ←   ZScarpia   18:14, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
I have those pamphlets. No author appears on them but Schechtman's authorship was proved by Rafael Medoff (Militant Zionism in America, pp214–215.) Medoff says they "served as the American Zionist leadership's staple literature for years to come". Also see Nur Masalha in Holy Land Studies, 2.2 (2004) 188–197. The standard set of misleading quotations originated here (Archbishop Hakim, etc), though they got even "better" with repeated retelling. Zerotalk 01:55, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

immigration certificatesEdit

Immigration Certificates to Palestine for one month in 1946

This was disputed, though no valid reason for disputing it was given:

At the end of the five-year period in 1944, only 51,000 of the 75,000 immigration certificates provided for had been utilized. In circumstances where Jewish refugees from Europe were fleeing violence and persecution, the White Paper's limits were relaxed and legal immigration was permitted to continue indefinitely at the rate of 18,000 a year.[1]

The "51,000" could use a better source but there is no reason to doubt it. The 18,000 per year is a correct report of the number of immigration certificates allotted per year for Jewish immigrants. The quota was published every month from the end of the war to the end of the Mandate. An example is shown here.

I added a source showing 10,938 remaining at war's end so the 51,000 could well be right in that case.Selfstudier (talk) 12:25, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
A valid reason was given - the self-serving claims of the British in their white paper are obviously false - they claim "In circumstances where Jewish refugees from Europe were fleeing violence and persecution, the White Paper's limits were relaxed" - and the case of SS Exodus proves this is false. Read WP:BRD and WP:ONUS and dO not add contested material to the article unless you get consensus for it. Here come the Suns (talk) 15:00, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
"In circumstances where Jewish refugees from Europe were fleeing violence and persecution, the White Paper's limits were relaxed". This statement is not false, both parts of it are obviously true.

I assume that what you mean is that the immigration limits were not relaxed enough to satisfy Zionist demands. The details of their demands and the actions they were taking to try and force their demands through (including the Exodus) are in the second source that I added although like a lot of material in this article, I don't really see what it has to do with Zionism per se.Selfstudier (talk) 17:57, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

The official annoucement of the 18,000/year quota is here: [1] Zerotalk 05:49, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

The source you recently added to the article (Kochavi) directly contradicts the claim that the 18.000/year would continue indefinitely. It states "Whitehall decided to extend the date until the quota was filled" and later "...British offer of 1.500 visas per month to be charged against the remaining White Paper certificates". Accordingly I am removing your falsification of sources. Do not re-add them until you have consensus. Here come the Suns (talk) 15:06, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I quoted the first source directly so I falsified nothing, nor was it contradicted by the second source; it is equally clear from your comments that you have not actually bothered to read the second source I provided ie what actually happened after the number of certificates was reduced to 400 at the end of 1945 but as I have said, it has little or nothing to do with Zionism and doesn't belong in the article in any case.Selfstudier (talk) 18:06, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
You inserted into the article, without consensus, a false statement that said the British offered to allow immigration of 18,000/year indefinitely. That is directly contradicted by the source you used which states that "Whitehall decided to extend the date until the quota was filled" and that "...British offer of 1.500 visas per month to be charged against the remaining White Paper certificates". that is - not indefinitely, and at most for another 10 months, and more likely for 6-7 months. Do not insert false information into the article, and do not re-insert material which has been challenged until you have consensus for it. Here come the Suns (talk) 18:56, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
You really have to cleanse your head of the idea that "without consensus" is the same as "without Here come the Suns' agreement". It isn't. It would also be a good idea to read sources more carefully. The words you quote refer to 1944, but on page 151 there is "Recognizing the seriousness of the situation, Whitehall decided on the continuation of a provisional allocation of 1,500 immigration certificates per month." referring to 1946. The White Paper allocation had by then been exhausted (see page 149). I also provided two items of documentary evidence above including the public announcement of the new policy in January 1946. The allocation of 1,500 certificates per month continued until the end of the mandate. The allocation for April 15, 1948 to May 14, 1948 appears in Supplement 2 of the Palestine Gazette No. 1661 on page 578 and is basically identical to the 1946 example in the image above. As far as secondary sources go, the 1946 announcement and the continued provision of certificates after the exhaustion of the White Paper quota appears on pages 15 onwards of "Supplement to Survey of Palestine" of June 1947, with statistics up to March 1947. Zerotalk 00:49, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 December 2019Edit

"Given Russia's anti-semitism, at the start of World War I, most Jews (and Zionists) supported Germany in its war with Russia.[citation needed]"

This sentence should be redacted it draws upon more historically cited notions surrounding anti-semetism in Russia prior to the start of WW1 but deviates into unsubstantiated and opinionated nonsense. It implies most Jews are Zionists at the time and location and concludes that this supposed majority supported Germany against the Russian Empire.

Of the 13,200,000-13,600,000 total German military personal employed during World War 1 approximately 12,000 volunteers were Jewish. Additionally according to German Jewish veterans in responding to accusations of the lack of patriotism via "information leaflet" [2] I can approximate 70,000~ Jewish military personnel total during World War 1 (if the translation comes through correctly)

When comparing these numbers with the recorded 6million+ Jewish victims of the holocaust in Germany 25~ years later i'm finding discrepancies in the Jewish population comparative to military involvement during world war 1.

Nevertheless, this sentence should be redacted as the "[citation needed]" will never come to fruition. AUSrogue (talk) 07:54, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

  Done It has been tagged with CN for over 4 years at this point, and I can't find one that seems usable, so I removed the entire sentence. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:46, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Return to "Zionism" page.