Recent updates to the page describe Zionism as an ‘ethno-cultural nationalist’ movement that engaged in ‘colonization of a land outside of Europe.’
By Erez Linn, Israel Hayom via JNS
A heated debate has erupted on social media over recent changes made to the Wikipedia entry for Zionism, sparking accusations of historical revisionism.
Users on social media have over the past several 24 hours posted a comparison between the 2023 and 2024 versions of the Wikipedia page, with one user, Liv Lovisa, claiming that “history is being rewritten.”
Blake Flayton, a vocal commentator on Jewish and Israeli issues, responded to the post, calling the changes “egregious” and urging someone with expertise to edit the page to reflect what he considers to be a more accurate portrayal.
At the center of the debate are key changes in the language used to describe Zionism, the movement that called for the establishment of a Jewish homeland in what is now Israel.
The 2023 version of the page framed Zionism as a nationalist movement born in the 19th century that sought to secure Jewish self-determination. In contrast, the 2024 version of the entry introduces more charged terminology, describing Zionism as an “ethno-cultural nationalist” movement that engaged in “colonization of a land outside of Europe,” with a heightened focus on the resulting conflicts with Palestinian Arabs.
“Zionists wanted to create a Jewish state in Palestine with as much land, as many Jews, and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible,” it reads.
Wikipedia lets editors who have gained status on its platform make changes according to various guidelines, which usually ensure a balanced approach. It is unclear what led to the sudden change in the definition.
On its website, Wikipedia says the following on its policies: “Wikipedia has no central editorial board. Contributions are made by a large number of volunteers at their own discretion. Edits are neither the responsibility of the Wikimedia Foundation (the organization that hosts the site) nor of its staff, and edits will not generally be made in response to an email request.”
Critics, including Flayton, argue that the new language in the Zionism entry distorts the historical narrative, positioning Zionism in a more negative light by drawing parallels to colonialism and downplaying the movement’s core goal of creating a safe homeland for Jewish people.
The use of the term “colonization,” in particular, has been a flashpoint, as it evokes a political context that some feel misrepresents the motivations behind the establishment of Israel and overlooks the historical persecution faced by Jews that led to the Zionist movement.
Another Twitter pro-Israel voice, Hen Mazzig, wrote: “The new Wikipedia entry on Zionism isn’t just inaccurate, it’s downright antisemitic. It asserts that the origin of Ashkenazi Jews is ‘highly debated and enigmatic,’ echoing Khazar theory, the dangerous lie that Ashkenazi Jews are converts and not descendants of the Jews exiled from the Land of Israel.”
He added, “This theory is often weaponized to call Israelis ‘colonizers’ and thus dehumanize us. In fact, Jewish history of repeated exile and migration from Israel to Europe is incredibly well-documented, as are genetic studies linking our people to the Middle East. Any balanced article discussing Jewish genetics and Israel would mention that. @Wikipedia has become a hate site. I hope they’ll change course.”
The uproar underscores broader concerns about the influence of Wikipedia, one of the most visited websites in the world, and the potential for bias or misinterpretation regarding politically sensitive topics like Zionism. As a public, user-edited platform, Wikipedia is often subject to scrutiny, especially when it comes to contentious issues like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. With millions of readers relying on the site for information, changes to entries like these can have significant implications for public understanding of historical events and modern geopolitical debates.
Israel Hayom has yet to receive a response from Wikipedia.