Talk:Zionism

Unsourced

• To be fair, one can oppose Zionism. It is intrinsically [[anti-Semitic{] to do so, in the year 2019, of course. As I wrote last Friday, anti-Zionism was "a legitimate academic debate in the half-century between Herzl's initial formulation and Ben-Gurion's ultimate declaration, but ... now serves as the thinnest of all thinly veiled ruses for genocidal aspirants who want to throw all the Juden into the Mediterranean." Indeed, just as one can be an unvarnished Jew-hater, one can surely still oppose Zionism. One can personally hold any number of vile beliefs.

I have put the source under the quote on the page. --2001:8003:4163:AD00:80BA:B63E:E0BF:2C3E 10:24, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

The author is not notable and doesn't seem WQ:Q, needs consensus to stay here. Maybe User:Evanvalken can give us an opinion on it. Rupert Loup 08:35, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

its quotable, and its notable more so for the media outlet then the author. --1.136.111.245 09:55, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

WQ:Q states: "Is the author or work from which the quote comes notable?", the quote still didn't achive the endurance factor because their recentism, and the author is quoting themselve so we should be discusing the original quote first and foremost. Rupert Loup 12:10, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

WQ:NQUOTE also states:

"The quote is from a notable person." Which this author is not.

"The quote is from an expert on the article topic and appears in a notable publication." Which the source is not. It is not from an academic publication. It doesn't have the weight to be here. Rupert Loup 13:30, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

• Is the quote verifiably sourced? Yes
• Is the quote original to the author to whom or work to which it is being attributed? Yes
• Is the subject of the quote a notable subject? Is it about a broad theme of the human experience such as Love, Justice, or Loneliness? Or is it about a narrow or mundane topic, like porcupines, lunch meat, or that new car smell? If the quote is about a mundane topic, does the author have particular expertise on that topic? If the quote is about another person, is that other person highly notable? Zionism is a notable topic
• Is the author or work from which the quote comes notable? If so, are they very notable, moderately notable, barely notable? Are they notable as a source of quotes (i.e., as a poet, pundit, or Yogi Berra)? The source which the quote comes from is notable
• Is the quote itself particularly witty, pithy, wise, eloquent, or poignant? It's wise
• Is the quote itself independently well known (as with proverbs and certain well-reported comments)? No

Has the quote stood the test of time? Too early to tell

There you go. --1.136.105.34 05:08, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Notability

Hello @A23423413, Your recent addition does not appear to be notable, I cannot find anyone repeating it. Could you provide sources repeating the quote? Best, NorthernWinds (talk) 12:19, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Notability

@A23423413 please provide any secondary sources to the quotes you have added. I have looked for a secondary source for every quote and if I couldn't find, I removed. I see you have added many of these quotes, which may indicate that you are not aware of WQ:FAME. Please review the policy. A quote has to be something that is repeated, something that the person is known for. Some of your quotes appear to just be passages from books, not repeated anywhere. NorthernWinds (talk) 16:31, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

I just did a search on one quote by Bella Abzug on another page in which you did massive deletions, and on this page I just did a search on one very notable quote by James Baldwin on the subject of this page, and found many sites and many books citing this statement: "I'm not anti-Semitic at all, but I am anti-Zionist. I don't believe they had the right, after 3,000 years, to reclaim the land with Western bombs and guns on biblical injunction." Your claim to "have looked for a secondary source for every quote" you removed is thus rather dubious. I do not have time or inclination to look for "proof" of notability of every quote you removed — but using this as clear logical refutation of your claim, I have restored them all. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki ⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 13:47, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

If it was removed, it was in error. I will go over this later today and list every quote deleted along with search results to clear it up.

Best, NorthernWinds (talk) 13:52, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

First quote: [1] [2]

Second quote: was removed in error (baldwin)

Third quote: [3] [4]

Fourth: [5] [6]

Fifth: [7] [8]

Sixth: [9] [10]

7: [11] [12]

8: [13] [14]

9: [15] [16]

10: [17] [18]

11: [19] [20]

12: [21] [22]

13: [23] [24]

14: [25] [26]

15: [27] [28]

16: [29] [30]

17: [31] [32]

18: [33] [34]

Please don't be hasty to assume bias... I was checking tens of quotes, a mistake was bound to happen. It is worth mentioning that many of these quotes were added by the same user, A23423413. Please revert your changes (but leave baldwin in). NorthernWinds (talk) 14:24, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Discussion of Quote

There are several quotes I think are a bit too long for this page.

• One of the things Zionism was meant to make from scratch was a Hebrew present. Not only in reality; in the language, too. In ancient Hebrew, there was very little grammatical present. There was a past and a future--that is, memory and longing. We almost never said "I go," "I do." It was necessary to make the present a linguistic habit, a routine part of life. Perhaps Zionism came into being primarily to create for us a present tense. To say at long last that the Jews, too, have a present. Whoever now denies this present has forgotten the whole lesson of Zionism; he would send us back to the days of remembering and longing of the Diaspora. We came to Israel so as to not wait for a messiah who is yet to come; rather, we came to be here now, today. That is Zionism in a nutshell.
• It’s somehow absurd and trivial to use the word Israel and the expression 60 th birthday in the same sentence or the same breath. (What is this, some candle-bedecked ceremony in Miami?) The questions before us are somewhat more antique, and also a little more pressingly and urgently modern, than that. Has Zionism made Jews more safe or less safe? Has it cured the age-old problem of anti-Semitism or not? Is it part of the tikkun olam—the mandate for the healing and repair of the human world—or is it another rent and tear in the fabric? Jewish people are on all sides of this argument, as always. There are Hasidic rabbis who declare the Jewish state to be a blasphemy, but only because there can be no such state until the arrival of the Messiah (who may yet tarry). There are Jewish leftists who feel shame that a settler state was erected on the ruins of so many Palestinian villages. There are also Jews who collaborate with extreme-conservative Christians in an effort to bring on the day of Armageddon, when all these other questions will necessarily become moot. And, of course, there are Jews who simply continue to live in, or to support from a distance, a nerve-racked and high-tech little state that absorbs a lot of violence and cruelty and that has also shown itself very capable of inflicting the same.
• I find that no other question so much reminds me of F. Scott Fitzgerald and his aphorism about the necessity of living with flat-out contradiction. Do I sometimes wish that Theodor Herzl and Chaim Weizmann had never persuaded either the Jews or the gentiles to create a quasi-utopian farmer-and-worker state at the eastern end of the Mediterranean? Yes. Do I wish that the Israeli air force could find and destroy all the arsenals of Hezbollah and Hamas and Islamic Jihad? Yes. Do I think it ridiculous that Viennese and Russian and German scholars and doctors should have vibrated to the mad rhythms of ancient so-called prophecies rather than helping to secularize and reform their own societies? Definitely. Do I feel horror and disgust at the thought that a whole new generation of Arab Palestinians is being born into the dispossession and/or occupation already suffered by their grandparents and even great-grandparents? Absolutely, I do.
• As the Jews in Israel long for immigrants with a certain affiliation to their people, and as Zionism—like any other ideology—needs constant justification, we have a secret hope in our hearts that a moderate anti-Semitic wave, along with a deterioration in the economic situation in their countries of residence, will make Diaspora Jews realize that they belong with us. ... Is proof even necessary? No one will protest the assertion that the rise in anti-Semitism in France gave us some satisfaction, in the sense of “we warned you, didn’t we?” Late Prime Minister Ariel Sharon did not hesitate to make such a declaration, angering the French government and many Jews who see themselves as unconditional French citizens. Thousands of Jews from France who see Israel as a lifeboat, as an insurance policy, purchased apartments here and raised real estate prices in the coastal cities. That’s good. It proves Zionism was right.
• One can be a Zionist without being a nationalist, even an unaggressive one. The earlier Zionism, that which has had a far longer career than the Neo-Zionism of to-day, was none the less Zionist, even though it had no tinge of nationalism in the modern semi-aggressive sense. That Zionism was not based on a Jewish nation, whose existence in the modern sense it did not admit, but on the Jewish people. The earlier Zionism had no political connotation. It was no less successful on that account. It was certainly one of the instruments that kept Judaism alive and Jewry in existence. That early - it may be termed spiritual - Zionism still exists even though its voice is drowned by the more blatant shouts of a nationalism that differs from it in many respects. And as that earlier Zionism, which is a large part of Judaism, flourished for centuries before Political Zionism was conceived, it will not inconceivably survive Political Zionism as a living force, for centuries.

@Koavf The above are just a few picks, and are not the complete list I disagree with being present here, at least at their full length. I also think the quote beginning with "The idea that Zionism is essentially racist is only consistent with the view that all nationalism is a form" is a bit ridiculous to include here. All of these quotes are not repeated. Ideally, I believe, a quote should be no longer than two sentences, 3 in very special cases. I feel like otherwise, it is tiring to read. I think the quotes above are not that interesting, and are not what the average reader is looking for in a quote collection. NorthernWinds (talk) 17:41, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks so much. In terms of what we have documented, Wikiquote:Quotability#Length is a guideline, so limiting the length of quotations is oftentimes and good principle to follow, but isn't a strictly-defined rule that must be followed. So I agree that these generally really long quotations are not good as they are generally not actually quotable. Furthermore, I agree that these are not the most interesting or representative or quotable quotations about this topic, so I'm inclined to remove them as well. I'll leave this up for a bit to see if anyone else responds, but I'm leaning toward removing all of these for the reasons stated. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:12, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

In general, I agree with the notion of trimming such overly long quotes. From this list, I would agree with trimming all but the first - I do find this one to be memorable and making a concise point and deem it worthy of remaining. Just my 2 cents. ~ UDScott (talk) 20:23, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

some questions this brings up for me to ask you are:

from your perspective, is it best practice for new editors to remove full quotes from main pages without first trying to contact the editors who added them initially?

of the individuals who these quotes are from, which ones do you consider not notable and/or not relevant to this page?

what do you see as the benefit of suggesting a new editor remove full quotes, rather than them making suggestions for how to shorten them? - A23423413 (talk) 17:42, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

As to these questions - I agree with the notion that rather than just outright remove quotes, I prefer trying to determine if some selective trimming might instead allow a portion of a quote to remain. But I also believe it might not be practical to try to contact users who placed a quote every time some trimming might be in order. Certainly if one were to contemplate removal of a large swath of quotes, I would recommend trying to have a dialogue first - or move them to the talk page and then engage with a dialogue about them with the user who placed them. ~ UDScott (talk) 20:28, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

While I believe in dialogue, I am reluctant to contact the users who have placed the quotes. It would be a very rigorous work and will not necessarily yield anything. I personally do not see a way to trim and something to remain interesting (perhaps only “One can be a Zionist without being a nationalist, even an unaggressive one”?) NorthernWinds (talk) 06:22, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Update: I have managed to trim one quote into a meaningful addition, but could not do so for the rest.

In ancient Hebrew,... There was a past and a future—that is, memory and longing... It was necessary to make the present a linguistic habit, a routine part of life. Perhaps Zionism came into being primarily to create for us a present tense. To say at long last that the Jews, too, have a present.

Do you have any other suggestions? NorthernWinds (talk) 19:30, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

it's best to start with you explaining which of the individuals these quotes are from you consider not notable and/or not relevant to this content page. and because we assume good faith by everyone, it's respectful to see if you can contact the editors that added them initially first, if their account is still active. sometimes you can find out who added them easily in the page's edit history.

if you and the other editor(s) agree that an individual is notable and relevant to the page, you can check if they would agree with a suggestion for how to shorten the quote, or suggest a different quote from them that you think would be better

the one quote that i added and you're proposing to remove from the main page is from Shulamith Hareven. can you clarify if you think she is not notable/not relevant to the page, or is there a different quote from her that you think would fit this page better than that one? - A23423413 (talk) 17:54, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

As I have reiterated many times, it is not the individuals that I am judging, but the quotes. I am not seeking to add more quotes/modify existing quotes of these individuals, that would be a lot of work that will not necessarily yield anything. You are welcome to trim them and/or propose others. NorthernWinds (talk) 16:02, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Adding quotes is time consuming, so it makes sense that trimming pages in a respectful, good faith way would be too. On the pages you created, do you think any new editor should be allowed to remove whatever quotes they personally want to, or should they try to contact you first? - A23423413 (talk) 12:34, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Removing quotes takes quite a while as well. I have to verify the repetition of each quote and examine each one to determine notability. I have trimmed pages in a respectful, good faith way. Your constant asserations otherwise constitute a personal attack. Anyways, I do not get this hypocrisy. When I contacted you about a quote I wanted to removed, you reported me for vandalism without even trying to discuss.

I again ask you to stop referring to me as a "new editor" and to you as an "experienced editor" as if it carries any weight. We are both editors.

Also, this has no place here. This is offtopic. NorthernWinds (talk) 12:54, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Christopher Hitchens quotes

• It’s somehow absurd and trivial to use the word Israel and the expression 60 ^th birthday in the same sentence or the same breath. (What is this, some candle-bedecked ceremony in Miami?) The questions before us are somewhat more antique, and also a little more pressingly and urgently modern, than that. Has Zionism made Jews more safe or less safe? Has it cured the age-old problem of anti-Semitism or not? Is it part of the tikkun olam—the mandate for the healing and repair of the human world—or is it another rent and tear in the fabric? Jewish people are on all sides of this argument, as always. There are Hasidic rabbis who declare the Jewish state to be a blasphemy, but only because there can be no such state until the arrival of the Messiah (who may yet tarry). There are Jewish leftists who feel shame that a settler state was erected on the ruins of so many Palestinian villages. There are also Jews who collaborate with extreme-conservative Christians in an effort to bring on the day of Armageddon, when all these other questions will necessarily become moot. And, of course, there are Jews who simply continue to live in, or to support from a distance, a nerve-racked and high-tech little state that absorbs a lot of violence and cruelty and that has also shown itself very capable of inflicting the same.
  • Christopher Hitchens, "Can Israel survive for another 60 years?," 12 May 2008, Slate.com

• I find that no other question so much reminds me of F. Scott Fitzgerald and his aphorism about the necessity of living with flat-out contradiction. Do I sometimes wish that Theodor Herzl and Chaim Weizmann had never persuaded either the Jews or the gentiles to create a quasi-utopian farmer-and-worker state at the eastern end of the Mediterranean? Yes. Do I wish that the Israeli air force could find and destroy all the arsenals of Hezbollah and Hamas and Islamic Jihad? Yes. Do I think it ridiculous that Viennese and Russian and German scholars and doctors should have vibrated to the mad rhythms of ancient so-called prophecies rather than helping to secularize and reform their own societies? Definitely. Do I feel horror and disgust at the thought that a whole new generation of Arab Palestinians is being born into the dispossession and/or occupation already suffered by their grandparents and even great-grandparents? Absolutely, I do.
  • Christopher Hitchens, "Can Israel survive for another 60 years?," 12 May 2008, Slate.com

User:TheAlderaanian Can you please clarify these quotes’ notability? NorthernWinds (talk) 17:16, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

You removed these quotes outright without an edit summary. I restored them. Please stop being disruptive. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:19, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

I did forget to include an edit summary, thank you for pointing it out and helping me improve. Please point out the disruptive part of moving quotes to the talk page and asking original adders to clarify notability as per discussion above NorthernWinds (talk) 17:24, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Recently removed quote

To be or not to be! To be the last Jews or the first Hebrews.

This quote symbolizes Zionist ideology, and was said before 1900. The word “Hebrews” means “Jews” (Zionist Jews). It was a part of the effort to create the “New Jew”, a liberated, secular and productive jew. You can actually see this naming scheme in the Hebrew w:Yishuv name ‘the Hebrew settlement’. It comes to say that the old Jew will eventually perish (to assimilation) and that the new Jew, the Hebrew, will survive and endure. It is similar to Nordau’s “Judaism will be Zionist, or Judaism will not be.” I believe this quote is notable due to how it brilliantly conveys this aspect of Zionism.
@IOHANNVSVERVS Following my annotation, do you still hold the belief that it is not notable? NorthernWinds (talk) 18:11, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

I suppose I'm indifferent about it. Doesn't seem very notable or a good quote. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:23, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

I see. I believe it is a good quote, so I will re-add with a little bit of annotation until (or unless) someone has a more firm stance against inclusion. Unrelated to that, I would like to have your opinion regarding these quotes.

Thanks, NorthernWinds (talk) 19:14, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Quote on settler colonialism

User:Galzigler could you clarify the notability of this quote you added? This just seems like an uninteresting long pov opinion on a topic. NorthernWinds (talk) 18:31, 14 April 2026 (UTC)