It's really not. While there are certainly some people now who espouse a religious and/or ethnic right to the land, that was not the driving force of political Zionism initially, or at basically any point along its history.
Replies
There were many other locations proposed for a Jewish state that Zionist leaders were prepared to accept. Birobidzhan actually existed, for a while, until the Soviets went back on their promise.
aug 25, 2025, 6:32 pm • 2 0 • view
Political Zionism, for many many Jews, is the idea that Jews need *a* State in which Jewishness is specifically protected as part of the national character. Which, personally, I still don't think is something we need or should have.
aug 25, 2025, 6:35 pm • 3 0 • view
But there are a lot of Jews who identify as Zionists who agree that the State of Israel that exists, and the way it came to exist, and the things it is doing are abhorrent. And the only reason they aren't working *with* you to stop the things you claim to oppose is your own refusal to learn.
aug 25, 2025, 6:38 pm • 3 0 • view
I mean was there another way to create an ethnoreligious state without colonializing?
aug 25, 2025, 6:39 pm • 0 0 • view
Yes. There were multiple suggested proposals, one of which briefly existed until the USSR decided actually antisemitism was more important to them.
aug 25, 2025, 9:54 pm • 0 0 • view
Yeah, so it’s basically like all the other religious states that resort to barbarism for this prophecy.
aug 25, 2025, 6:36 pm • 0 0 • view
Ok but what is happening now is in the name of an ethnoreligious state. So see where this can go?
aug 25, 2025, 6:34 pm • 0 0 • view
If you don't understand the difference between "God said this land is ours" and "our people have ancient, important connections to the history of this land" you could frame this as a religious conflict. But you would be incorrect in framing it that way, because those are, in fact, different things.
aug 25, 2025, 9:50 pm • 4 0 • view
Neither justifies genocide or ethnic cleansing, but the latter is both probably, actually true, and there is room within it for *shared* rights to self determination on the land, while the first has neither if those qualities.
aug 25, 2025, 9:52 pm • 5 0 • view