I didn't realise you think I'm missing context in our on-going debates on Zionism, rather than this sub-thread. However, your line about standard-issue European imperialism implies the view you ascribe to me is more informed by one standard hard-left critique of Zionism and my political self-identification than what I write or touch on.
But before I get there, some other points. First, I don't think that the history of anti-semitism and the 19th-century rise of modern European anti-semitism and their role in the birth of Zionism is a context unknown to, or known in a (positively) spun version, by the readers of ET. (On another blog, I even posted an erroneous version of what inspired Theodore Herzl, linking to a blood-libel case in Hungary.) Because of the previous, I also don't see much reason behind demands to spell these out on ET (except maybe to "name") -- in contrast, I do think that sentimental illusions about the history of Israel and Zionism before it are all too common even here. Second, what may appear as significant mitigating or explanatory context to you may not be one for me.
As to characterising Zionism, you know that nationalism is significant for me. I see Zionism as a fusion of European ideas of nationalism with European ideas of colonialism (from French to Anglo-Saxon), which is based on the European ideas of cultural or racial superiority, born as one response to the emergence of other European nationalisms whose genetic version brought forth the modern anti-semitism. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
In European ideas of nationalism, I include not only ideas of community, territory and homogenity, but also victimhood myths [myth in the community-building, country-ars-poetica sense rather than true/false sense], the search for traditions and history to lean on.
A fourth defining pillar of Zionism I see is what wchurchill would have made more sense referring to when 'missing context' for Zionist terrorism, the inevitable and inevitably escalating armed conflict with Palestinian Arabs (e.g. for Irgun the Great Arab Revolt). *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
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.
