Zionism is a broad theory and ideology of population migration that had many strains, some of which worked closely with Palestinian groups in the early part of the century. All sorts of groups over the millenium have seen the need to leave their present residence to escape repression and seek a new home. The world is hardly a place where every person is in the same place their ancestors lived and the world map is shaped by mass migrations of peoples.
To single out the migration ideology of the Jews as uniquely racist is not anti-Israel but anti-Jewish. It is the specific end-product of that migration, the Israeli state that deserves the criticism, so casual attacks on "Zionism" rather than the Israeli state just melds anti-semitism into the criticism.
As well, of course, the history of this century has such propaganda as the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" which gives attacks on "Zionism" in criticisms hands an extra taint of the antisemitic propagandists.
So I wonder why people insist on attacking "Zionism" rather than attacking the Israeli state?
-- Nathan Newman
Nathan Newman nathan at newman.org http://www.nathannewman.org ----- Original Message ----- From: "Forstater, Mathew" <ForstaterM at umkc.edu> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2001 11:35 AM Subject: RE: zionis
Question I've long wondered: has the Review of Radical Political Economics EVER had an article on zionist colonialism/apartheid? Maybe it has, but I can't recall one, and I've been through most of the back issues numerous times. Mat