In my view, discussions of Israel by leftists are in many cases tainted by what are clearly apologetics for Israel and Zionism. Examples are legion, but two will suffice.
One frequently heard claim concerns the diversity of thought within Zionism, eg., support for bi-nationalist political arrangements, cooperation between Jewish and non-Jewish workers against their "true oppressors", socialist aspirations of various sorts, even of experiments in anarchic organization of society in the kibbutz movement. Certainly, these currents existed. Crucially, they were numerically weak and of little political significance. The dominant, hegemonic views all favored a state in which at a minimum Jews were a numerical majority and controlled the state politically. In my view, it is a sign of bad faith to search for marginal elements in order to paint a rosier picture. For example, I am sure that latter-day admirers of segregation in the American South would point to the small number of Southerners who opposed segregation on principle as evidence of the diversity of views on the subject, with as much merit. These currents, mentioned so frequently in discussions in leftist circles, were simply window dressing on the Zionist ideological apparatus. As for the kibbutz movement, in my view any discussion of its merits in progressive circles must be prefaced with an acknowledgement that the kibbutzim were for Jews only. Non-Jews had to convert in order to join. This held even if the kibbutz itself was composed of the most comitted atheists. This fact is omitted in almost every discussion of the kibbutz movement that I have read in leftist publications. Perhaps somenone could explain this lack of discussion. I have no time for racially-based utopias, but that is my view, of course.
Another motif I will call "the U.S. made them do it" motif. I am well aware of the role that Israel plays in U.S. foreign policy and the influence that the U.S. has on its client state. Policy choices made by the U.S. played a major role in thwarting a two-state settlement after 1967, and different choices by the U.S. might have strengthened elements within Israeli society which favored a two-state solution. AS Americans, our primary responsibility is of course the actions of our own state, as that is what we can most effectively change. But as the late Israel Shahak pointed out in numerous writings, Israel pursues its own foreign policy, within the constraint of not directly or too forcefully damaging American interests. More to the point, the racist nature of the State of Israel is not an invention of American foreign policy, the exclusionary laws and regulations of the Israeli state and their origins in Zionist ideology are not products of evil minds in the State Department, the CIA did not instill ideas about "redeeming the land" in the heads of Zionists and now Israeli Jews, and yes, the Zionists carried out their ethnic cleansing in 1948 without any training at the School of the Americas. Please excuse the sarcasm.
A few more specific comments about other posts:
Disappointing that no one bothered to refute the type of rubbish that holds that the failure(N.B.: I haven't checked these claims) of various Arab states to allow Jews to return to their countries makes Israel's refusal of Palestinians to return to their homes acceptable. Certainly, any state that perpretates some barbarous act can point to comparable crimes committed elsewhere and complain of being held to a higher standard, with as much merit. Moreover, for Americans, what Israel does is our business, since we pay the bills for much of it. To Mr. Henwood, your truck with the opposing-Zionism -is-rooted-in-anti-semitism view is curious. Nothing but a Stalinist-style smear, in my view.
More to say, some other time perhaps...