[Eliamar]

One writer, summing up Kim Jong-il and Kim il Sung's thought, said that a nation needs to be considered in view of "a common culture" and needs to be viewed by "taking bloodline and language as the common features." He said, "the territorial definition of a nation includes fellow countrymen of the same bloodline." (Thus Amerika and other imperialist countries are pseudo-nations.)

Do people of the Korean nationality actually have a common bloodline or is that just something that Korean nationalists assume? Do Jews have a common bloodline or is that just something that you assume? When you referred to America as a "pseudo-nation", it reminded me of how the Nazis referred to America as a mongrel nation as if the term "mongrel nation" could not be applied to all nations and as if being a mongrel nation was a bad thing.

[RedFlagBearer]

I hate to break up the thread, but a while back one page one, Ixabert or SOMEONE says that Israel existed thousands of years before Arabs came into existence.

You apparently haven't been studying much Bible history.

Abraham bore two sons, Ishmael and Isaac. Abraham, being the first Jew, started the Israelite tribe, while Ishmael went on to start the Arabic tribes. Hence, Israel is only a few YEARS older than Islam, and that's not even talking about the STATE of Israel. According to the Tanach, God supposedly told the Israelites to come out of Egypt and conquer the land called Israel today from other people ( Jericho, to name one instance ).

Comradely,
Aaron

[Faceless]

A mile back Ixabert likened Zionism to black nationalism but black nationalism is not categorically nationalist and we should not take it from an etymological stand point. Communists seek a class solution; uninvolved in Nationalism as Monkey Angst earlier explained. That is the emancipation of the proletarians under the rule of any bourgeois. Principally that means that we are for one state based upon proletarian rule. However, any solution to the ending of oppression of the workers that encompasses a multiple state solution must be considered because it seems that the Palestinian proletariat can not achieve freedom in the one state of Israel as they are not represented by this state. Naturally no dictatorship of the bourgeoisie represents its people but in the case of Palestinians, their plight is worse still.

[sine29]

An interesting topic and a great way to start my posting on PoliticalForum.org

First of all it seems slightly ridiculous yet understandable how others could equate Zionism with Black Nationalism.

First of all its necessary to understand that obviously Zionists beleive in a God-given right to have a State of Israel (seemingly regardless of the loss of property/capital on the part of the Palestinians).

Black Nationalists (which come in varying extremes) take their ideology from the undying beleif that all-men should be created equal. It is also important to stress that Black Nationalism is a product of the plantations, and not from any Bible or religious beleif. In this sense its some first propertiors such as Toussaint L'Ouverture and Dessalines (in Haiti) back in the French revolution period were forced into their "hatred" of whites by the actions of whites.

Those two mentioned individuals led Haiti to revolution against their French oppressors and created the world's first ever Black state outside of Africa. The experiences of those pioneers was a product of the action of others and they realised that at that time it would be necessary to create an exclusively Black nation in order to achieve complete freedom. Todays Black Nationalists, at least those that hold that plantation mentality are simply racists and are using events that happened in the past between groups as an excuse to discriminate against non-blacks.

This brings me back to my point nicely: that Zionism is more akin Fascism than it is to Communism. That is, that it assumes some absurd notion that a race of people has right to territory/land/capital because it says in some Book, or this person (who might not have even existed) was promised something by a God that not everyone beleives in. It's like a mad man telling you that the voices in his head are telling him to kick you out of your house.

As a side note it is my firm beleif that the Zionists are simply Islamophobes who use their religion as a cover. The fact is that the Jews were expelled from ancient Palestine by the Romans thousands of years ago. The Arabs simply moved into territory left vacant at the collapse of the Roman Empire. Therefore removing these peoples from their lands is wholly unjustified.

[Furious Angel]

Zionism is about liberating the Jewish people, who have been oppressed
for over 4000 years, and continue to be oppressed. And as Mao
said, nationalism of the oppressed is a type of internationalism. You should
support Zionism for the same reason that you support Black Nationalism.

One writer, summing up Kim Jong-il and Kim il Sung's thought, said that a
nation needs to be considered in view of "a common culture" and needs to
be viewed by "taking bloodline and language as the common features." He said, "the territorial definition of a nation includes fellow countrymen of
the same bloodline." (Thus Amerika and other imperialist countries are
pseudo-nations.)

We must embrace Zionism, in the name of humanity. We are
humanitarianists.

Wow! Ixabert! I thought you against Zionism!

[Furious Angel]

First of all it seems slightly ridiculous yet understandable how others could equate Zionism with Black Nationalism.

First of all its necessary to understand that obviously Zionists beleive in a God-given right to have a State of Israel (seemingly regardless of the loss of property/capital on the part of the Palestinians).

You use very untrue myth about Zionism. First of all, Zionism was created as secular movement wich don't believe very much in god. Now, there are some Zionist movements who are bit religious- but from other hand, there are also many atheistic Zionist movements. Secondly, Zionists believe in historical right of the Jews to have a state and not God-given right.

As a side note it is my firm beleif that the Zionists are simply Islamophobes who use their religion as a cover. The fact is that the Jews were expelled from ancient Palestine by the Romans thousands of years ago. The Arabs simply moved into territory left vacant at the collapse of the Roman Empire. Therefore removing these peoples from their lands is wholly unjustified.

If Zionists were Islamophobes- they wouldn't create a country wich is surrounded by enemies.

The Arabs simply moved into territory left vacant at the collapse of the Roman Empire. Therefore removing these peoples from their lands is wholly unjustified.

Oh really?

How many counries the Arabs have? And how much the Jews?

Secondly, the Jews didn't meant to remove the Arabs- but when the Arabs atacked Israel from all the fronts, and even from inside- Israel had to remove some Arabs. But not all the Arabs were removed. And the Arabs who stayed, got full citizen rights, and many of them serve in the Israeli army.

[sine29]

"Historical right of Jews"

As far as I am concerned there is no historial right. You were removed from the area thousands of years ago. This doesn't make it fair that you were ever removed - but it is as equally unfair to displace Arabs who have occupied the area for all that time.

How many counries the Arabs have? And how much the Jews?

It's not really fair to start counting how many countries each religion/ethnic group have each. This is quite beside the point, you could argue that there are over a Billion Muslims and less than 20 million Jews.

The Jews weren't clamouring for a return to Israel before WWII and Hitler came along. The need for a homeland away from Europe was simply (an understandable) reaction to Fascism in Europe.

Going back to the topic though: you must agree that it is unreasonable to liken Black Nationalism to Zionism.

[Maoz Zur]

"Historical right of Jews"

As far as I am concerned there is no historial right. You were removed from the area thousands of years ago. This doesn't make it fair that you were ever removed - but it is as equally unfair to displace Arabs who have occupied the area for all that time.

As F_A said, if Arabs weren't attacking Israel with it's creation- than they would still be here.

[Faceless]

Furious Angel wrote:

Secondly, the Jews didn't meant to remove the Arabs- but when the Arabs atacked Israel from all the fronts, and even from inside- Israel had to remove some Arabs. But not all the Arabs were removed. And the Arabs who stayed, got full citizen rights, and many of them serve in the Israeli army.

and
Furious Angel wrote:

How many counries the Arabs have?

To make a collective reference to Arabs is and how many countries "they" have is beside the point. The point is that Palestinian refugees want to live in ex-Palestinian Israel. They have a right to this as all refugees have. To collectivise "them" and saying that "they" (Palestinians and within that bracket refugees) were terrorising the helpless Israeli people is simply not right. The rejectionist Amerikan-Israeli policy has denied the rights of the Palestinian refugees to return to Israel. This is simply illegal. You can blame Palestinian militants for the dislocation of these people if you want but they do not represent the refugees. How can you hope to legitimise the constant expansion of "Greater Jerusalem" into the West Bank and the continuous annexation of Palestinian land and resources? Do Palestinians with land represent a security threat? What about the simple theft of water supplies in the West Bank? The annexations/"rights" of the Israelis seem very strategic. Just a coincidence though no doubt? You may use all of this rhetoric about the tokenism of retaining some Arabs but the hard facts are that Israel is continually denying the rights of these people no matter what you claim the initial reasons.

You use very untrue myth about Zionism. First of all, Zionism was created as secular movement wich don't believe very much in god. Now, there are some Zionist movements who are bit religious- but from other hand, there are also many atheistic Zionist movements. Secondly, Zionists believe in historical right of the Jews to have a state and not God-given right.

This does not make it any less "Fascist" though. I find your claim to be pointless because they have no more historical right than they have religious right. Fascism is concerned with the myth of re-birth; a palingenetic nationalism. Strikingly, Zionism has many parallels with Fascism. It wants the re-birth of the Jewish state in much the same way that Fascism wanted the re-birth of German, Spanish or Italian greatness. Perhaps you would claim that Italy has a "historical right" to most of Europe. Perhaps you might claim that Hungary has a "historical right" to Austria. Sound a little stupid to you.

[Furious Angel]

This does not make it any less "Fascist" though. I find your claim to be pointless because they have no more historical right than they have religious right.

Are you doubt the fact that Judea and Israel ever existed?

Fascism is concerned with the myth of re-birth; a palingenetic nationalism. Strikingly, Zionism has many parallels with Fascism. It wants the re-birth of the Jewish state in much the same way that Fascism wanted the re-birth of German, Spanish or Italian greatness. Perhaps you would claim that Italy has a "historical right" to most of Europe. Perhaps you might claim that Hungary has a "historical right" to Austria. Sound a little stupid to you.

Very non-correct statement. Contrary to Fascism, Zionism doesn't believe in invation to other countries. Zionism believe's in creation of a state- so that the Jews will live safelly without being persecuted. I don't see any conection between it and Fascism.

[Maoz Zur]

To make a collective reference to Arabs is and how many countries "they" have is beside the point. The point is that Palestinian refugees want to live in ex-Palestinian Israel. They have a right to this as all refugees have. To collectivise "them" and saying that "they" (Palestinians and within that bracket refugees) were terrorising the helpless Israeli people is simply not right.

Their representetives atacked Israel- and that's why we say "Arabs". Just as you say "the Israelis killed Sheikh Yasin"- when you actually mean that IDF killed that terrorist old bastard. The leaders of the Arab countries, including Palestinian Arabs, has attacked Israel in the same day when the two states, Jewish and Palestinian, were announced. And that's why I say "Arabs" in generally.

The rejectionist Amerikan-Israeli policy has denied the rights of the Palestinian refugees to return to Israel. This is simply illegal.

Really? Why is that? Is attacking country in the day of it's birth and kill a 1% of Israelis in 1948 legal? I think not.

Also, why should Israel let in a hostile population? Why would it want to have fifth column wich will cooperate with the enemies?

You can blame Palestinian militants for the dislocation of these people if you want but they do not represent the refugees. How can you hope to legitimise the constant expansion of "Greater Jerusalem" into the West Bank and the continuous annexation of Palestinian land and resources? Do Palestinians with land represent a security threat?

What about Palestinians who kill Israeli women and children? Israel won't go out of the territories until the fence will be ready. We have already had sad experience with Lebanon wich continue to kidnap soldiers and exchange them for terrorists, even after Israel have left Lebanon.

What about the simple theft of water supplies in the West Bank?

I don't see what's wrong with that. It's not that Palestinians sufer from it. Israel supply the Palestinians in everything they need, including electricity, water, and other stuff- when everything is on Israeli account.

The annexations/"rights" of the Israelis seem very strategic. Just a coincidence though no doubt? You may use all of this rhetoric about the tokenism of retaining some Arabs but the hard facts are that Israel is continually denying the rights of these people no matter what you claim the initial reasons.

Israel is not going to annex the territories- it's not worthwhile. But, Israel will leave the territories as soon as it would see that there is no way that Palestinian redicals will coninue to be a threat for innocent citizens.

[sine29]

This does not make it any less "Fascist" though. I find your claim to be pointless because they have no more historical right than they have religious right.

Are you doubt the fact that Judea and Israel ever existed?

Faceless is correct, no-one is in any doubt about the existence of Judea, but it is still incorrect to say that just because a state did exist there thousands of years ago - it gives people the right just to walk in and annex the territory again. The world would be constantly at war if that idea was copied elsewhere.

Fascism is concerned with the myth of re-birth; a palingenetic nationalism. Strikingly, Zionism has many parallels with Fascism. It wants the re-birth of the Jewish state in much the same way that Fascism wanted the re-birth of German, Spanish or Italian greatness. Perhaps you would claim that Italy has a "historical right" to most of Europe. Perhaps you might claim that Hungary has a "historical right" to Austria. Sound a little stupid to you.

Very non-correct statement. Contrary to Fascism, Zionism doesn't believe in invation to other countries. Zionism believe's in creation of a state- so that the Jews will live safelly without being persecuted. I don't see any conection between it and Fascism.

But Zionism in its current manifestation does beleive in taking strategically placed historically owned territories, while seemingly leave the rest to the Arabs. The links between Zionism and Fascism are clear, Hitlet wanted to create a "Greater Germany", free from the influence of the Jews so they wouldn't be oppressed etc etc. This involved displacing and exterminating millions of Jews and other ethnic miniority "sub-species". With the occupation of Palestinian territories, curfews and the widespread eviction of Palestinians from their homes: the only thing Israel hasn't done is exterminate them yet.

[Faceless]

Furious Angel wrote:

Very non-correct statement. Contrary to Fascism, Zionism doesn't believe in invation to other countries. Zionism believe's in creation of a state- so that the Jews will live safelly without being persecuted. I don't see any conection between it and Fascism.

I think you will find that my arguement is correct by definition. It is wrong to say that Fascists believe in the invasion of other countries. The various acts of aggression by the Fascists were incidents not ends. As explained, Fascism is Palingenetic Nationalism. The idea of national re-birth of Fascism is consistent with Zionism. Germany attacked the Czechoslovakian border because it felt that the Sudeten Germans had the right to be in a German nation. Likewise the Rhineland and even Poland in an extended great Germany. I believe that these were pretexts with some belief from the Fascists in the right to these lands. Similarly I believe that "Israel" is just the pretext for a joint pillaging by some rich Jews and Amerikans of Palestine. But that would be speculation. My point is that Israeli aggresion is an incident. Maybe you argue there is no such thing as an aggresive Israeli but Zionism is still a Fascist ideology by its very definition be it pacifist or otherwise.
As Marx suggested: people's consciousness are formed through their social conditions. As Israeli cappies and yourself aren't doing so bad under Fascists systems you have no need to question them.
Furious Angel also wrote:

Are you doubt the fact that Judea and Israel ever existed?

I do believe that it once existed. As did the Persian empire, South Vietnam and a Japanese Manchuria. I fail to see your point. Its previous existance does not endow it with some historical "right". Unless Japan has the right to half of China, Iran to most of the middle east and more disturbingly Mongolia to much of the Eurasian land mass, "historical rights" are just a worthless piece of rhetoric normally spouted by Fascists (not that I mean to point the finger).

Maoz Zur wrote:

Their representetives atacked Israel- and that's why we say "Arabs". Just as you say "the Israelis killed Sheikh Yasin"- when you actually mean that IDF killed that terrorist old bastard. The leaders of the Arab countries, including Palestinian Arabs, has attacked Israel in the same day when the two states, Jewish and Palestinian, were announced. And that's why I say "Arabs" in generally.

True: Yassin has some popularity in the Gaza strip. Nevertheless he is certainly no representative of the Palestinians. He is much less the representative of the refugees. Still, his murder was no less reprehensible. When I refer to "Israel" I refer to a state. You may deny that but the very fact that I recommend a "class solution" encompassing all Israeli and Palestinian proletarians is testament to what I mean. I mean the state, the elite. You though are being racist. Palestine hasn't had a state until recently although even here the responsibilty of this is to Israel and doing the job that Israel doesn't want to do (such as re-settling refugees). Your reference is to perhaps a few thousand militiamen as representative of not just Palestine but the Arabs(!)
Maoz Zur wrote:

Really? Why is that?

laws on refugees aren't that ambiguous. You can not justify one atrocity because of some other.

I don't see what's wrong with that. It's not that Palestinians sufer from it. Israel supply the Palestinians in everything they need, including electricity, water, and other stuff- when everything is on Israeli account.

Yeah. My mistake. I always thought that Palestinians were actual water-deficient because of this. So, accoding to you, there is nothing wrong with making these people dependant on hand outs from a country who stole their water, land etc. Presumably you'd be fine with an Islamic state which gave Israelis enough to eat and drink? No harm done?

Israel is not going to annex the territories- it's not worthwhile. But, Israel will leave the territories as soon as it would see that there is no way that Palestinian redicals will coninue to be a threat for innocent citizens.

Nice to see that you are a good utilitarian . I think though that the recently "legitmised" West Bank settlements represent a ruthless form of annexation. Israel is systematically cantonizing the West Bank. Ironically (ignoring the selfish possible interests being served) it makes it harder for any Palestinian state to "fight terror".

[The American Lion]

How many counries the Arabs have? And how much the Jews?

I got a better one!

[Faceless]

That's a funny joke you've made about a few million repressed people.
You are a truly SHAMELESS wanker.

[Maoz Zur]

I think you will find that my arguement is correct by definition. It is wrong to say that Fascists believe in the invasion of other countries. The various acts of aggression by the Fascists were incidents not ends. As explained, Fascism is Palingenetic Nationalism. The idea of national re-birth of Fascism is consistent with Zionism.

But, you can say the same thing about Palestinian nationalism, Tibetian nationalism and any other kind of nationalism wich can be seen in almost every country and nation.

Germany attacked the Czechoslovakian border because it felt that the Sudeten Germans had the right to be in a German nation. Likewise the Rhineland and even Poland in an extended great Germany. I believe that these were pretexts with some belief from the Fascists in the right to these lands.

But what is it has to do with Israel? Israel doesn't clame for the whole mid east- and all it want's is to exist as Jewish and democratic free counry. The proof of that was when Israel gave back the territories of Lebanon, Egypt and Syria wich it conquered when Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Lebanon attacked it. Israel doesn't aspire for world ruling.

I do believe that it once existed. As did the Persian empire, South Vietnam and a Japanese Manchuria. I fail to see your point. Its previous existance does not endow it with some historical "right".

Alright, let's try more practical approach: Every nation has a right for a piece of land. Jews have suffered for thousends of years because they didn't had a land and they were considered "different" from the local society. The only way to end this suffer is to create a Jewish land so that the Jews would be able to protect themselves and not to be hated. The only land that Jews have a some right to live in is the land of Israel.

Unless Japan has the right to half of China, Iran to most of the middle east.

Actually, Israel can also clame for most the middle east- because in it's golden age the "United Hebrew Kingdom of Israel(was composed of Judah and Efraim tribes). But it doesn't clame for it, right?

Their representetives atacked Israel- and that's why we say "Arabs". Just as you say "the Israelis killed Sheikh Yasin"- when you actually mean that IDF killed that terrorist old bastard. The leaders of the Arab countries, including Palestinian Arabs, has attacked Israel in the same day when the two states, Jewish and Palestinian, were announced. And that's why I say "Arabs" in generally.

True: Yassin has some popularity in the Gaza strip. Nevertheless he is certainly no representative of the Palestinians. He is much less the representative of the refugees. Still, his murder was no less reprehensible. When I refer to "Israel" I refer to a state. You may deny that but the very fact that I recommend a "class solution" encompassing all Israeli and Palestinian proletarians is testament to what I mean. I mean the state, the elite. You though are being racist. Palestine hasn't had a state until recently although even here the responsibilty of this is to Israel and doing the job that Israel doesn't want to do (such as re-settling refugees). Your reference is to perhaps a few thousand militiamen as representative of not just Palestine but the Arabs(!)

If we talk about the war in 1948, that it was surly "Arabs" who attacked Israel, because it was not one- but few Arab countries.

You can not justify one atrocity because of some other.

Whay is it atrocity not to let refugees that left the state to come back?

Yeah. My mistake. I always thought that Palestinians were actual water-deficient because of this. So, accoding to you, there is nothing wrong with making these people dependant on hand outs from a country who stole their water, land etc. Presumably you'd be fine with an Islamic state which gave Israelis enough to eat and drink? No harm done?

Look, if an Islamic country will counquer Israel- I would be supprised if they won't frow us all in the sea as they promised.

Nice to see that you are a good utilitarian . I think though that the recently "legitmised" West Bank settlements represent a ruthless form of annexation. Israel is systematically cantonizing the West Bank. Ironically (ignoring the selfish possible interests being served) it makes it harder for any Palestinian state to "fight terror".

The settlements are actually "exchange cards" for Palestinians to give up for the right of return.

[sine29]

If we talk about the war in 1948, that it was surly "Arabs" who attacked Israel, because it was not one- but few Arab countries.

You might as well if the roles were reversed and a bunch of "surly Arabs" decided to create an enclave in territory you had controlled for thousands of years.

The topic is about whether Communists should support Zionism, and the fact is that the Internationalist nature of Communism will render any support for it null and void. Especially as the Israelis are backed up by big-brother America, and are rich while the Palestinians live in Ghettos

Let's face it, only Jews, Israelis, and weird Christians who beleive the existence of an Israeli state as vital for the second coming support Zionism. Others just think its frankly ridiculous and the arguements you put forward are the same.

The fact is the Jews fled persecution in Europe and went to commit the same crimes in Palestine (all except the mass extermination).

The way you describe the Arabs leaves little to be desired, and conflict and war rather than dialogue and agreement will never create a solution (perhaps the Israelis don't want one!)

[Mycroft]

Zionism is about liberating the Jewish people, who have been oppressed
for over 4000 years, and continue to be oppressed. And as Mao
said, nationalism of the oppressed is a type of internationalism. You should
support Zionism for the same reason that you support Black Nationalism.

It's very interesting that you say communists should embrace Zionism. Many of the early Zionist communities were organized along socialist lines and still exist today. They are called kibbutzim.

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Society_&_Culture/kibbutz.html

[Faceless]

Maoz Zur wrote

But, you can say the same thing about Palestinian nationalism, Tibetian nationalism and any other kind of nationalism wich can be seen in almost every country and nation.

Not quite. The Palestinian refugees are still first generation, as are the Tibetans. They also are experiencing repression. One could argue that the Jews were just as badly repressed. It's strange then how a tons of rich fundementalist Christians and rich American jews emigrate to Israel. It would be wrong to compare these people to Palestinians. If Tibet liberated itself and coquered China, installing a massive Buddhist state I would also object. Hypothetically, if some oppressed form of humankind made a claim to Etheopia because that was where their ancesters evolved, we would no doubt both just laugh. If some ancient scroll suggests that Tibetans began life in Europe and the Tibetans made a claim to a piece of land in central Europe the size of Tibet, I would also object. That would be regardless of the accuracy of such a scroll.

But what is it has to do with Israel? Israel doesn't clame for the whole mid east- and all it want's is to exist as Jewish and democratic free counry. The proof of that was when Israel gave back the territories of Lebanon, Egypt and Syria wich it conquered when Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Lebanon attacked it. Israel doesn't aspire for world ruling.

The "right" to certain lands is not untypical of Fascism. Nazi Germany didn't claim all of Europe in the short term did it? Israel represents a province of Amerika. It already rules the world. Everything Israel doesnt want Amerika votes against or vice versa in the UN despite overwhelming international opinion. These two little countries have a remarkable record for "going it alone". It's always the World v the US, never the opposite. You surely can not deny the staunch support of the US for Israeli policy. The two nations are as good as one. Here's a question:
why did Israel build an illegal nuclear arsenal if not as a leverage over its enemies? why did the U$ overlook it yet bomb others who might threaten such middle eastern monopoly into the stone age? Now that's a hard one. No doubt it'll be a surgical tool in the war against terror.

Maoz Zur

Actually, Israel can also clame for most the middle east- because in it's golden age the "United Hebrew Kingdom of Israel(was composed of Judah and Efraim tribes). But it doesn't clame for it, right?

I was demonstrating the absurdity of the whole concept.
"

If we talk about the war in 1948, that it was surly "Arabs" who attacked Israel, because it was not one- but few Arab countries.

Why does Lebanon or Egypt or much less, their government, represent the Palestinians. You are collectivising a race.

Look, if an Islamic country will counquer Israel- I would be supprised if they won't frow us all in the sea as they promised.

So if they did give you "what you need" you submit that that might be tollerable? Bah! I expect they would give you the status you give Palestinians. Now there's something to think about. My point though is that Israel has stolen water and now Palestinians in the West Bank have shortages.

It's very interesting that you say communists should embrace Zionism. Many of the early Zionist communities were organized along socialist lines and still exist today. They are called kibbutzim.

Be warned:
Italian fascists called themselves "anti-capitalist".
Huge subsidies to create ongoing illegal communities in Palestinian land count as Socialist? This was socialism for the already rich. This wasn't socialist, it's strategic. As you would say if I defended Cuba:
"superpower" + "bankrolling"
These communities are artificial. Also, as sine29 said, Communists are internationalists. Zionism continues to persecute Palestinians and uses these people brutally as the Proletarians upon which all of the bourgeoisie is built. Subsidising does not equal Socialism.

[Mycroft]

Maoz Zur wrote
Be warned:
Italian fascists called themselves "anti-capitalist".
Huge subsidies to create ongoing illegal communities in Palestinian land count as Socialist? This was socialism for the already rich. This wasn't socialist, it's strategic. As you would say if I defended Cuba:
"superpower" + "bankrolling"
These communities are artificial. Also, as sine29 said, Communists are internationalists. Zionism continues to persecute Palestinians and uses these people brutally as the Proletarians upon which all of the bourgeoisie is built. Subsidising does not equal Socialism.

These are two very different issues. The kibbutzim are not the settlements in the disputed territories and should not be confused.

Historically, Zionism was a movement to create a refuge for the Jewish people where they could be safe from persecution. It was mostly a secular, not religious, movement. Within the movement, there was a great variety of opinion in how this should be done, and what the final form of this refuge should look like, even to the point of disagreeing if this homeland should be a nation or not.

Zionism saw its fulfillment with the creation of Israel, so the desire to create a refuge no longer works as a definition. A modern definition of Zionist would be those who support the continued existence of Israel. Within that framework, there is still a wide variety of opinion on how that should be done, and one can certainly disagree over the correctness of the settlements and still be a Zionist.