I largely agree with that (though I'm not sure what you mean by 'genetic version'). But the context of the emergence of Zionism makes me see it as more the equivalent of one nation of, say, Native Americans fleeing Europeans and taking over the land of another Native American nation. Incidentally a good account of the emergence of Herzl's Zionism placed in the context of Habsburg Vienna and the death of Austro-German liberalism can be found in Carl Schorske's 'Politics in a New Key: An Austrian Trio' in Fin de Siecle Vienna: Politics and Culture
I meant to distinguish a 'cultural version' where you are supposed part of a nation if you speak a certain language, follow a certain set of traditions and customs, and live in a certain area; and a 'genetic version' where common ancestry and having or not having this or that supposed physical features counts. The first version would accept assimilated Jews but may persecute those sticking to traditions, the second will view suspiciously and persecute even assimilated Jews.
But the context of the emergence of Zionism makes me see it as more the equivalent of one nation of, say, Native Americans fleeing Europeans and taking over the land of another Native American nation.
Well, Jews weren't dwelling in a single area and those who fled didn't collectively fled to Israel, which makes it difficult for me to see an equation. On the other hand, surely Zionism probably would have fizzled out without the big Russian anti-semitic campaign (the pogroms and the secret service drafting the Protocol of the Elders of Zion). *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
