Even political Zionism is minimally defined as supporting "a home for Jews in Palestine"[1] Not only does it not require any ethnic exclusivity nor even for a national identity, it doesn't even require an independent state in the contemporary sense. Some of those who identify as Zionist take it to mean only that Jews should be able to live with some form of self-determination in Palestine, and so when they hear "anti Zionist" they take it to mean supporting the expulsion of Jews, which, of course is not what many of those who identify as anti-Zionist want. When some anti-Zionist hear the term Zionist, they take it to mean support of an exclusive ethno-national Jewish state, which, of course, is not what many of those who identify as Zionist want. The term could mean something very different to different people, to the point that the same political position can be called Zionist by some and anti-Zionist by others, which makes the term mostly useless.
I read that Wikipedia link as affrming my definition of "Political Zionism"
It focused on a Jewish home ... centred on gaining Jewish sovereignty ... and was opposed to mass migration until after sovereignty was granted
A racial state, I contend.
Definitions are only one part - apartheid is a description of what Israel has achieved, "Political Zionism" is a good candidate to describe the underlying ideology.
However you look at it, it is a catastrophe without a likely, of foreseeable, happy ending. Even the state of happiness the South Africans achieved looks elusive
It does not have to be that way. Jewish people could be secure in Israel and live in peace there, but the Israeli state seems unable and unwilling to make the compromises to bring it about.
A Jewish home isn't necessarily an exclusively Jewish home. My country is the national home of the English people, but it isn't a national home for that people exclusively (although some wish to change that). And while it certainly sees to me that the situation in Israel can best be described as apartheid, I don't see the point in using a term such as "political Zionism" that is also used by people who identify as its supporters to mean the opposite of what you say it is. I.e. some people support a binational Jewish-Arab state in the name of political Zionism. If different people have wildly different interpretations of a term - interpretations that go as far as being on opposite sides of the core issue - that term becomes useless.
As to Zionism having an explicit ethnic meaning, that is obvious and non-surprising. Political Zionism was formed in Europe at a time of ethnic and national awakening (and as a result of centuries of oppression against Jews and other ethnicities), and further shaped in the time of national struggle against colonialism and multinational empires. At least until the sixties (if not the nineties), ethnonationalism of ethnic minorities was seen as a progressive position against conservative multi-ethnic/national empires. You can see traces of such "left-wing nationalism" not only in Israel (obviously, I'm not referring to its current ruling coalition), but also in Ireland and in Asia. Ideological (rather than pragmatic) support of a Palestinian state - which is just as "racialised" as a Jewish state - is also a form of that. If you want a "feel" for that in the US, think Malcolm X or the Back-to-Africa movement, and especially Marcus Garvey, who was expressly inspired by Zionism and Irish nationalism.
Of course, even as early as the 1920s and the rise of right-wing nationalism, many on the left recognised that left-wing, "emancipatory", nationalism can quickly turn into right-wing, oppressive, nationalism and warned against that when it came to Zionism as well as other national movements of the time. I think they ended up being proven right in almost every case (including the famous examples of Israel and India), but emancipatory nationalism did play an important historical role in decolonialism, and in the case of Israel, it also helped save the lives of many Jews fleeing the horrors of oppressive nationalism (mostly in Eurpoe, but later also in the Muslim world).
But imagine Black Nationalism had succeeded and become oppressive on a national level, how hard it would have been to talk simply about "Black Nationalism", and how it would have meant different and probably opposite things to different people.
I understand the history, that the people who established Israel after WWII were brutalised survivors and they brought that brutality to bear in the process of state creation, but they remain racist genocidal thugs practicing apartheid
Then they (those thugs from the Israeli state) claim they represent all Jews. Makes it very hard for Jewish people everywhere who have any decency
> Political Zionism means the sort of Jewish state (a racial state) in a way that racists in England want an "English" state (which means "white")
For some who identify with it, yes, it means that and for others it means something completely different: a political entity that ensures a national home for Jews. In the early days of political Zionism, still in the age of empires, what they had in mind was some sort of autonomy within the Ottoman Empire.
> In Israel "...only Jews have the right to self determination "
Yes. In many countries (e.g., in America) no ethnic group has a stated right for self-determination. In the UK, it's accepted that Scotland may withdraw from the union and obtain self-determination through some process. But yeah, it's definitely a problem.
> that the people who established Israel after WWII were brutalised survivors and they brought that brutality to bear in the process of state creation, but they remain racist genocidal thugs practicing apartheid
I have no reason to believe that Israelis are any more or less statistically racist than people in other countries. The problem in Israel is not some old ideology that is largely anachronistic, but that the country has, indeed, established apartheid and that it's massacring Palestinians. The past experience of the minority of Israeli Jews with ancestry in Europe that escaped from the holocaust (BTW, those who established Israel got there long before WW2) or the majority with ancestry in the Middle East that escaped Arab nationalism is similarly irrelevant. Their crimes are just crimes.
The way I see it, there are two barbaric, bloodthirsty tribes living on that land, both currently led by illiberal, nationalistic, and increasingly religious-fundamentalist leaders, so while, as a leftist, I can obviously support neither leadership, Israel is guilty of apartheid and horrendous war crimes. I'm not optimistic. At this point my gut says that instead of fighting off British colonialism, they should have begged us to stay. The American colonies aren't doing so well, either.
And yes, I also hate how the Israeli government claims to represent all Jews. Going by the polls, they might not even represent a majority of Israeli Jews. But that's the new fascism. I'm mostly terrified of it making its way to the UK.
What term do you think would be useful specifically to describe the very widespread tendency in much of Israeli society to view Jews as inherently superior and deserving of favorable treatment by the state? Jewish supremacy, maybe?
