Jump to content

Talk:Timeline of Zionism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Laurence Oliphant's info is VERY inaccurate and unsourced

[edit]

[edit: My apologies for any emotionally charged language. Thank you for your hard work everyone! I believe the points here still stand but I realize I need to be more polite in the future.] Where did the information come from regarding Laurence Oliphant wanting to put Palestinians on reservations? Why is there no source? As far as I can tell this is total bs and I've read every bit of his writing I can get my hands on. Let me quote my cousin Laurence on the matter: "The Jews themselves have borne repeated testi- mony to the fact that, so far as they are concerned, Christian fanaticism in Eastern Europe is far more bitter than Moslem" (https://archive.org/stream/landofgileadwith00oliprich/landofgileadwith00oliprich_djvu.txt) Furthermore he was petitioning the Ottoman Empire to allow Jews to immigrate. Why on earth would he possibly believe they would put Muslim locals in reservations so that foreign Jews could move in? This is incredibly insane and without a source I'm honestly shocked it was allowed here. Just think about how insane that is for a minute. "I'm going to petition a Muslim government that is overtly hostile to European colonization to put local Muslim inhabitants in reservation camps so that Europeans can colonize." Pardon my French, but WTF!?


Also, in regards to the total bs about "warlike bedouins", here is what Laurence says in the same source listed above. "Now, however, we were getting into country rarely visited by any traveller, in regard to which there were the usual exaggerated stories of marauding Bedouins, of the necessity of an escort, and so forth. Fortunately, we had no dragoman to invent impossible dangers for the pur- pose of sharing the black-mail..."


This garbage about Laurence wanting to put Palestinians on reservations should be removed immediately unless a source is provided which I very much doubt is possible. Taylor Oliphant (talk) 08:20, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, me Taylor again. I'm on the road but I had some more info to append to my last post--just further information.

"The fact that this rich and luxuriant country should be only sparsely inhabited by a wandering population, possessing no legal title whatever to the soil, specially adapts it to settlement by a fixed and permanent population who could be established here without injury to the Arabs ; for regulations might easily be devised under which the interests of both could be safeguarded and secured." (https://archive.org/stream/landofgileadwith00oliprich/landofgileadwith00oliprich_djvu.txt)

I found the specific context of the reservation comments. I strongly disagree with Laurence, but needless to say it's not what the timeline page reports here. What the page promotes is more or less libel.

"They would rejoice at the expulsion of their masters, who have appropriated the lands which they had originally occu- pied ; and they are so far sedentary and agricultural in their habits that they could be reduced to the con- dition of peaceable villagers without difficulty, and form a valuable labouring population, to be employed by immigrant capitalists. [He was a dick. I get it. But not as bad as initially reported.] The Adwan would be more difficult to deal with, being lawless and preda- tory in their habits ; but they are so entirely depend- ent upon the produce of the lands which they culti- vate, that their good behaviour might be secured by reserving them possession of these. In fact, the same system might be pursued which we have adopted with success in Canada with our North American Indian tribes, who are confined to their 'reserves,' and live peaceably upon them in the midst of the settled agricultural population." (https://archive.org/stream/landofgileadwith00oliprich/landofgileadwith00oliprich_djvu.txt)

So he made a mistake, definitely many, but he didn't say put Palestinians on reservations. He said give them jobs and find a solution in their interest, and then some who don't want Laurence's version of jobs, put on an idealized version of a reservation. He was a moron far more than a guy looking to control Palestinians. He definitely said win/win above.

2605:A000:122B:E39F:105F:C963:BA57:786E (talk) 00:53, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[Untitled]

[edit]

I am not very well versed in this subject, but it seems to me that generally movements start long before assosciations are formed to represent them. There must be some events before the society was created.

Interesting that there's been no response to the (above) cogent observation over the last two years. In fact Zionism existed for thousands of years prior to the first entry on this timeline. However, the article does state that it is only meant to cover the "Timeline of Zionism in the MODERN era." I would suggest that the modern era starts with the Enlightenment, Emancipation, rise of Nationalism and liberation movements of which that of the Jews was merely one.
Since this article is intended to only cover the "Modern Era," the article should be titled Timeline of Zionism in the Modern Era. Doright 19:49, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[Untitled#2]

[edit]

One feels the holocaust should be mentioned in this. Evercat 22:51 7 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Bernadotte

[edit]

Fares S (talk · contribs) added the assassination of Folke Bernadotte. The Zionist leadership condemned this act by a fringe group, so it would be wrong to say that it representated mainstream Zionism. It's covered in articles dedicated to history of the conflict, but doesn't belong in the Timeline of Zionism. I removed it. ←Humus sapiens ну? 08:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Answer about Bernadotte

[edit]

If you read my sentence about Count Bernadotte, you can notice that I said that a "Zionist terrorist group assassined the UN mediator".

This sentence does not imply that ALL the mainstream Zionist leadership is composed of terrorists.

It only says that a terrorist group (that might not represent the mainstream) has assassined Bernadotte ... and that's a fact.

You might want to hide it, in order to embellish the image of the Zionist movement. That's your own choice. But this is definitely a non-professional behavior.

Rgrds,

F.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fares S (talk • contribs) .

Should this be in the article at all? I do not assume bad faith, but the article cites a specific source which says nothing at all on the issue. I vote to finding sources for information on such sensetive matters. --Chodorkovskiy (talk) 09:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Chodorkovskiy: For all references, I would invite you to visite the Wikipedia article "Folke Bernadotte" where you will see that the Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir (A Zionist) was part of the terrorist group. This is what our biased contributor was trying to hide ... Fares S 10:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He was in Lehi about 50 before he became prime minister, nobody is trying to hide anything, we just don't want to poison the well. Also not even Islamic Jihad's article describes them as terrorist, it's just too controversial a term.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 21:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Fares S, I would like to remind you that Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and that each article should point to outside sources. Otherwise, it becomes original research. --Chodorkovskiy (talk) 05:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expand template added on Late 20th Century

[edit]

I find the current section quite lacking in major historic events. A general idea of the timeline of Zionism in this current era should have the Six Day War and the captured land. This condition should also include the Land of Israel with both the religious and political usages of that term.

Another high point should be the 1977 Election, which brought Menachem Begin and Likud to power; this item currently claims to be important, but seems little discussed or documented. To this, the Jerusalem Law, the Golan Heights Law and Israeli settlements should probably be added, as Zionist advances, but NPOV would require including what others think. This reference[1], particularly the section entitled The territorial-political axis: Eretz Israel versus Medinat Israel, starting on page 8, might be of assistance in piecing this together.

More items should be included, but this would require involvement of more editors. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 07:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Timeline of Zionism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:48, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1851 - Disraeli

[edit]

The subsection "1851" says that it relates Disraeli's "proto-zionist views." What follows is a quote nested inside of another quote, and in neither case does it indicate who the speaker is. I went to the source material and, since all the names are abbreviated, I couldn't decipher it whatsoever. It also contains several different pronouns without any antecedents or indication of who is being referred to.

I don't think there's a chance that anyone reading that tangled quote-within-a-quote would walk away able to tell you what "Disraeli's views" were. Is anyone able to decipher the source material and replace it with something actually informative? 2600:1700:37B0:7C60:F401:1B7A:8EE1:FB5 (talk) 22:07, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"occupied"

[edit]

I have just modified the terms Ottoman occupied Palestine into Ottoman Palestine, and British occupied Palestine into British Mandatory Palestine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or please consider discussing this here before reverting the edit. My reasoning goes as follows:

  • Ottomans conquered Palestine from the Mamluks after 1516, and had various degrees of control over it until the 20th century. (cf. History of Palestine)
→ For the Ottomans, the term occupation does not fit, as it was not temporary. Cf. the definition in its article: Military occupation, also called belligerent occupation or simply occupation, is temporary hostile control exerted by a ruling power's military apparatus over a sovereign territory that is outside of the legal boundaries of that ruling power's own sovereign territory. The controlled territory is called occupied territory, and the ruling power is called the occupant. Occupation is distinguished from annexation, colonialism, or apartheid in that it is a power structure that the occupant intends to keep in place only temporarily. The occupant often establishes military rule to facilitate administration of the occupied territory, though this is not a necessary characteristic of occupation.
→ For the Brtish, the term occupation does not fit, as it was mandated by the League of Nations.

Hence, I conclude that in both cases, it would be wrong to speak of "occupied" Palestine. You wouldn't disagree, would you? Saippuakauppias ⇄ 23:01, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OR

[edit]

Just saying anything related to Jews going to Palestine is Zionism is blatant OR, what source connects any of the pre-20th century material to Zionism? nableezy - 15:53, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article dates to 2003. It is not sufficiently sourced, but when it was created, there were not as stringent requirements for inline references. I doubt it is OR. It is probably from the JE and sources like that and can be improved. Andre🚐 16:04, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there are no sources connecting Thomas Brightman or any of the other fluff in this article to the topic of Zionism then it is indeed OR. I will be giving it a week or so before I start removing things that have no sourced connection to the topic of Zionism. nableezy - 16:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Timeline_of_Zionism&oldid=1248097119"