>In left circles, the term "Zionsim" seems to serve as a mere
>epithet emptied of most of its descriptive content.
I'm not sure why you think I was using the term only as an epithet. I used it because you did. It seems to me that by saying opposition to Sharon makes one de facto a non-Zionist, *you* drain the word of all its content. FWIW, I don't think it really makes sense to speak of Zionism anymore. Zionism began to lose its primary motivation in '48-'49 and ceased to exist as a movement for itself when Israel became a U.S. client. The ideology of Zionism still guides Israel (for instance, in its insistence on religious and racial purity and its occasional fantasy of "transferring" Palestinians), but "Israeli colonialism" is a better description of the political topography of the Middle East than "Zionist dominance."
>If one calls for an end to the occupation, what difference
>does it make if they're a Zionist?
Is a call for an end to the occupation necessarily a call for an end to colonialism and a validation of Palestinian self- determination?
Eric