I would say that a Zionist today believes that the existing state must remain specifically a Jewish state, in which certain rights of Jews necessarily always take precedence over those of non-Jews. This principle must be upheld against any competing argument, or any assertion of right by another national or subnational entity.
Not sure what I am. I think they should definitely have a country of their own, but they need to share it better. And if it puts them in a vulnerable spot, well, they’re like 10-0 vs. outside attackers right? Maybe accept that as a fact of them living amongst people who hate them
I suppose that’s one way to put it, although I’d just stick to the basic principle that Zionism is the belief in the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish homeland. I don’t support that. I do support their right to exist as the generational holders of land who aren’t going anywhere voluntarily.
I have a little bit of approval for Israel as a state. I’d like to find a solution to make it possible. However, I mostly see it as a foreign policy issue - we need to pursue a course of action that maximizes stability and prosperity and a Zionist insists that a Jewish state needs to be the outcome regardless. In that sense, I don’t really see Israel as all that different from other contested territories like Kashmir.
I agree that the meaning has changed, but not that it has no meaning.
Prior to 1948, in meant ‘supportive of the establishment of the state of Israel, as an ethno-nationalist ‘homeland’ for Jews’.
After 1948, it means ‘support for the continued existence of the state of Israel, as an ethno-nationalist ‘homeland’ for Jews’.
The reason why many North Americans in particular may not support the notion, is that they see no necessity for having any “ethno-nationalist homelands” for anyone - why can’t everyone be basically like North America, and divorce nationality from any ethnic “nation” origins? Doesn’t the very notion of having such “nations” smack of bigotry?
In a perfect world, one may agree with that - all of the Jews in Israel ought to be able to disregard their ethnic identity and live wherever they want, such as where their ancestors came from - places like Russia, or for the Mizrai, places like Syria and Iraq - places where being Jewish, in an ideal world, would not be any sort of issue. 
The reason why the Zionist project made sense, and I submit it still does, is that we are not living in such an ideal world - and so Jews living in such places were, and are, vulnerable to the same sort of treatment as they got last century, and which similar groups, such as the Yazidis and Christians, are getting this century.
The notion of having an ethno-nationalist ‘homeland’ is basically a defensive one - the idea being that such a place ought to act as a haven against exterminatory actions on the part of other groups. The necessity of this does not generally appeal to North Americans, who have come up with an alternative solution - the nation that is indifferent to ethnicity. At least in theory - in the US, the relative success of Trump in rousing animosity against Muslims is putting that project into a slight amount of doubt (slight, because I don’t think he can succeed).
I’m not Jewish and I voted no, not sympathetic. I don’t understand the idea that anyone NEEDS to have a homeland established as a state. Particularly given how important that area of the world is to 3 major religions making up roughly half the world’s population, just seems like begging for disastrous relations to create a nation-state there based upon only one of those religions, especially given the contrast against much of the rest of the region. Of course, that might be the whole aspect of hindsight. Regardless, I’m not sure the allied nations did all that good of a job chopping up that area. And yes, I do sympathize with the trials of the Jewish people, but I just cannot say that morally that justifies them getting greater claim to that land or that all the resulting wars and deaths do either.
That all said, that doesn’t mean I’m in favor of dissolving it. Whether or not it’s creation and those consequences were morally justified, it’s been there for nearly 70 years and, overwhelmingly, the people who live there have known it no other way. So I do have a great deal of sympathy for those people, but I don’t think that means that Israel necessarily deserves the amount of diplomatic and financial support that it’s getting. If we could meaningfully reduce the amount of violence in the Middle East encouraging certain peaceful actions regarding the ceding of land or power or, perhaps even the opposite, I think they should be considered. I’m not sure what the correct answer is, but I’m reasonably sure that the US’s current stance of unmitigated support of virtually everything the state of Israel does probably isn’t it.
Heh, exhibit “A” to my point immediately above.
I would agree, many people (particularly North Americans) don’t understand the “need” for a homeland/haven established as a state. I would also agree that, in a well-organized world, such a thing would become obsolete by definition (as would states, and armies defending states).
The reason why they are unfortunately necessary, is that our world is an anarchic one, in which only states - and armies - are capable of providing safety; and the promises such states make to non-state actors are notoriously worthless.
Thank you. I am reconsidering my long held view in response to your two posts.
Actually, I can’t agree with this. The State of Israel protects all, Jews and non-Jews, from being driven into the sea.
You might say that’s like the joke about both rich and poor being forbidden to sleep under bridges, but the fact is that the IDF protects all Israelis from threats of harm, not only the Jews, even if only the Jews are the actual targets from some specific external NGOs.
The Israeli Supreme Court has been very active in denying favoritism that would be contrary to equal rights.
In this case, Israel isn’t based on Judaism being a religion (at least, not solely), but as an ethnicity.
And count me as, “I support Israel’s right to exist, don’t always agree with their actions, and have no fucking idea what Zionism means in this day and age”.
Missed this before - I mostly disagree with this: as Trinopus mentioned above, it isn’t the case as an absolute matter of law (there is no denying that the majority in Israel tends to demand preferential treatment, and there is widespread racism and discrimination, but that is true of majorities in many places).
More to the point - even if that were not so, it is still possible to be a Zionist today without, of necessity, requiring an assertion of specific extra rights. In fact, one can be a Zionist while deploring bigotry in any form within Israel.
The one area in which the “national home” project clearly creates “special rights” lies in the area of refugees. One of the founding purposes of Israel was to ensure that a haven existed for Jews fleeing from persecution, so the laws allow them an easier entrance than non-Jews into the country via the “law of return”.
If this easier entrance was available to non-Jews, the country would quickly be swamped (Israel is a rather small country at the crossroads of Africa and the ME part of Asia - both prime generators of refugees, particularly these days), so extending it more broadly isn’t practical: restricting it would mean denying the “refuge for Jews fleeing persecution” purpose.
There’s glory for you!
I think you are mistaken. Maintaining the Israeli state in its present structure and context–which is more or less the Zionist objective–absolutely relies on institutional bigotry. Despite the formal, general decree of equality in the Declaration of Independence.
You actually acknowledge significant parts of this.
That’s not the “one area.” Once in Israel, Jews have access to dramatically preferential treatment with respect to land ownership/leasing (partly codified in ILA/JNF policy), access to housing, employment, health care, and education, versus non-Jews.
But the population equation is indeed the biggest element. Israel, as presently structured, relies on non-Jewish citizens (“Arabs” in typical parlance, though they aren’t all Arabs) being kept to a permanent minority position, for fear that an enfranchised non-Jewish majority would, maliciously or not, undo the value of Israel as a haven. As you say.
I don’t see how one can reconcile that with “deploring bigotry in any form.”
The premise and conclusion are correct…but the means by which you accuse this of being accomplished don’t exist. Israel doesn’t expel citizens, nor deny citizenship to naturally born inhabitants. Israel doesn’t compel birth control on its non-Jewish families; there isn’t a “one child” policy.
If the non-Jewish population exceeds the Jewish population, then, by the rules of Democracy, they’ll control the Knesset and change the laws. That’s a virtue of democracy.
So, even though you’re right…you’re completely wrong.
I agree. Arguing whether or not there should be a Jewish nation has been a moot point since 1948. Israel exists. Debating its existence now is like debating the existence of Mexico.
I don’t agree. I acknowledge the existence of bigotry in Israel (as I do in Canada, the country I happen to live in). I even acknowledge that there are certain areas of difference ‘hardwired’ - in both countries.
Israel has its “Law of Return” that treats incoming immigrants differently.
Canada has its Constitution and Indian Act that treats English, French and Native Canadians differently.
Of the two, Canada has by far the more significant “institutionalized bigotry” actually encoded into its laws, and with by far the worse differential effects on its actual inhabitants. The Israelis would never have dared to subject Palestinians to “Residential Schools”, for example; and to this day, Native Canadians have different legal status, and suffer significant differential poverty, incarceration rates, etc.
That is quite aside from the English/French “founding peoples” doctrine that is imbedded in our constitution.
Yet no-one would credibly say that “Maintaining the Canadian state in its present structure and context–which is more or less the Canadian objective–absolutely relies on institutional bigotry”. Why should I subject another country to a standard I would not apply to my own? That would be hypocritical.
Perhaps you live in a country without such issues; I do not know. I can’t off the top of my head think of any that do, though.
Rather, I’d say that both countries, in line with countries generally, have ongoing issues and problems with stuff like bigotry, and have inequities imbedded in their respective laws - and that one absolutely can be a Canadian patriot, or a Zionist sympathizer, while acknowledging such problems: indeed, I’d suspect the patriotism of anyone who was unwilling to acknowledge problems with the country of their residence or choice!
Once again, the fact that there exists problems in these spheres does not invalidate the country - nor are they necessary for its existence. On the contrary.
Nor are these inequities solely a matter of “Jew” versus “non-Jew”. Again, on the contrary.
To give an example, within Israel itself the most infuriatingly unfair set of benefits and privileges are those offered - to the Ultra-Orthodox. These folks are often “anti-Zionist” and there is no love lost between them and their more secular majority fellows - yet they have been able, by dint of the oddities of Israeli electoral politics, to wring all sorts of absurd concessions.
The picture of Jews legally lording it over non-Jews is too simplistic. Like any democratic nation, Israel has all sorts of problems and inequities, as a product of historical development and electoral politics. They are not, thankfully, a necessary part of the state, but problems to be addressed.
There is no actual mechanism to achieve this, so it cannot so rely. Non-Jewish citizens of Israel are citizens, and as Trinopus mentioned, there are no means to “enforce” a Jewish majority.
It is very easy to reconcile this quite imaginary problem with deploring bigotry.
Huh? The immigration and citizenship laws, reinforced by the land laws, are the mechanism. You practically said as much in your previous post. Israel will not allow non-Jews to become a majority within the present structure by any means.
State-sanctioned Anti-Semitism has plagued Jews (in varying degrees) for millennia, across a wide range of other cultures, religions and government types. Zionism, the creation and, having been created, maintenance, of a haven where Jews will never be subject to such persecution, is a concept I fully support.
I’m not really sure what Zionism means given that Israel already exists. I’m not Jewish. I think Israel should continue to exist, so I guess that means “no but I’m sympathetic,” but there’s no option for that for non-Jews.
Wut? Is your claim that Israel will somehow use the ‘law of return’ to ensure a Jewish majority?
How exactly would that work? Israel can’t induce Jews to seek refuge in Israel; they are hardly arriving, these days, in large enough numbers to have a major demographic impact.
Should it become the case that non-Jews start to demographically compete for a majority, what exactly is supposed to happen? That Israel will send out the call, and North American Jews flood in? There are no other major sources of new Jews for Israel, and a North American Jewish exodus to Israel seems highly unlikely! 