But that is in some sense my point. By using the word "zionism", you open up the criticism itself of the Israeli state to the charge that it is based on animus towards the Jews generally rather than towards the particular actions of that state.
For example, why the insistence that "Zionism equals racism" when the charge that "Israel is a racist state" would do. My argument is that the insistence on the first formulation does encode forms of anti-semitism, even if many people not antisemetic generally might have endorsed it politically. But why insist on discussing "Zionism" when discussing Israel serves the same purpose?
Of course, the creation and existence of Israel serves other interests, but that is even more detached from "zionism" as an ideology, since that reflects not zionism but the national and political interests of non-Jews. Calling that historical phenomena "zionism" just confuses the issue more and is frankly even more innacurate, for even many of the most anti-Arab Jews also hated the European powers like Britain and the accomodations made were not of ideology but of pragmatism.
There is just the most basic political point. Say you are organizing a campaign against "Zionism" and it would seem you have a smaller coalition than a campaign against Israeli's inhuman occupation of the Palestinians. Why choose rhetoric that shrinks support, unless the hope is to appeal to groups for whom the human rights abuses of Israel are of less concern but attacking Jews might be attractive?
That attacks on "Zionism" has been staple rhetoric of nations engaged themselves in the worst forms of human rights abuses makes one suspect that the latter issue is what is involved with the decision to harp on the word "Zionism" rather than on Israel's acts itself.
-- Nathan newman