What are the goals of anti-zionists?

Their main goal is disassembly of Israel. Some of them also plan deportation and partial destruction of millions of innocent civillians.

But how are they planning to achieve their goals without a major perhaps nuclear war in the Middle East?

I think they think god will help figure all that out.

I don’t think most of these people have a rational plan. Nor do I think the idea that they won’t succeed changes their strategy.

“Anti-Zionism” is not a proprietary term. A plain reading suggests that it might include anyone who substantially opposes any element of Zionism, in theory or practice.

If the state of Israel were to continue to exist as an independent Jewish homeland, but with equal rights for non-Jewish residents, and in accord with an independent Palestinian state comprising Gaza and some portion of the West Bank… would you consider that Israel had been “disassembled”?

Requesting for a forum change to General Questions or Great Debates.

You can call it whatever you want, but there are national policies and personal beliefs of millions of people that all the Jews in Israel should be killed and the land that is now Israel be owned by whatever group they happen to belong to. And they intend to do that through any means possible. Some of them include nuclear weapons as one of the options.

This conversation looks disingenuous so far, unless perhaps the sentiments here are serious.

I’m an anti-Zionist. I want the displaced Palestinians to exercise the “Right of Return” guaranteed to them by international law. It’s too late for places like North America, Australia, and New Zealand to return to their rightful owners, but it wasn’t too late for South Africa, and it’s not too late for Palestine.

Personally, due to my anarcho-syndicalist stances, I would like to see a no-state solution. It seems more likely, however, that largely due to recent and ongoing Israeli expansionist policies, the region will end up with a one-state solution in which the Zionists will quickly have only two options. They can have a democratic state in which they will be outvoted, and thus lose their Jewish-supremacist grip on power; or they can attempt to rule an undemocratic apartheid state, isolated in the eyes of the world and damn the consequences.

For the longest time, the general attitude in the region mirrored what the Saudi King Abdulaziz told FDR at their famous meeting. The peoples of the Middle East generally had nothing against the indigenous Jews of Palestine (and vice-versa), but they had an enormous problem with the Zionists, who were arriving from Europe with the stated goal of ethnically cleansing the land for their own state. That distinction still exists, but it has been dangerously muddied over the years, partly due to the Zionists’ own actions, and partly because of demagoguery in the Arab states and elsewhere. The portent is ominous, but it’s no business of the US.

The excellent journalist Max Blumenthal describes the situation very well here:
http://scotthorton.org/2013/01/24/12313-max-blumenthal/

There’s lot of other good information at Antiwar.com.

The right is guaranteed to refugees – not their descendents.

And then there are some even sillier personal beliefs.

Seconded. GD is better, I think.

I am anti-Zionist because I see what Zionists believe in as akin to conquest and colonization, and that has no place in the 21st century.

But now that Israel exists, how can it be “remedied” without another conquest and de-colonization? Ethnic cleansing on a fairly large scale.

Two wrongs?

By a one-state solution – the only conceivable solution that requires nobody, not even the West Bank settlers, to move.

It’s been pointed out so many times that it’s a cliche, but it’s worth stating again.

If Israel can’t find some way to a two-state (or three or four or whatever state) solution, then the Palestinians who live in the West Bank and Gaza will remain under their control, and they have a de-facto one state solution.

You cannot have a democratic Jewish state that includes the west bank. You can have a democratic Jewish state that doesn’t include the west bank, you can have a democratic multi-ethnic state that includes the west bank, or you can have an undemocratic Jewish state that includes the west bank.

So rank your preferences and decide what future you want. Plenty of Israelis seem to be drifting to choice number three. How’s that going to work out for them, long term?

Well, a united Israel/Palestine still would be a Jewish-majority state for a generation to come (probably no more than that, and not a very wide majority even at the start), but I take your point.

Anti-Zionist is a polluted term. It does not differentiate those who seek the destruction of Israel for racial/religious/hatred reasons from those who hold other beliefs, up to and including objecting to Israel getting special treatment among nations.

Unclear, actually: would this entail a “right of return?” In that case, what about people who are now living on the same land where someone else has the right to return to? I’m living in your grandfather’s house; if you have the “right of return,” then I pretty much do have to move.

Only when the Knesset-including-Palestinians votes for it – but Palestinians would not be in a majority in it for another generation, so that probably puts off the problem at least that long.

I have the horrible feeling that it would lead to a civil war – and, thus, a two-state solution in the end, anyway. And probably a much crummier one, with borders drawn by battle, not by negotiation. Why go through that much extra hell, when a negotiated two-state settlement seems at least conceivably within reach in our lifetimes?

Please don’t include New Zealand in that statement. All humans in New Zealand are recent immigrants ( relatively speaking ). Some were there earlier than others, but none are “indigenous”, in the way that Aboriginals or native Americans are.

Being anti Zionist is not the same as being anti Jewish. A Jew is not necessarily a Zionist.