I agree with much of what Mira Sucharov says, but I have a question. What does the word "Zionism" mean today, when Jewish people have fulfilled their right for national self determination in their historic homeland and every Jew has right to live in Israel? Mira Sucharov mentions "Jewish sovereignty". I think that it's very dangerous to confuse between "Jewish national self determination" and "Jewish sovereignty". In democracies, sovereign is the citizentry. And every fifth Israeli is not of Jewish descent. Does this mean, that their voices mean less, or that they should be pushed to the margins of the society or that they should be discriminated against or sometimes even suffer from sheer racism? If we judge by the situation in Israel of our days, than this is probably what the "Jewish sovereignty" and "Zionism" mean today. In the past, Zionism was the ideology of Jewish national liberation movement. And the very nature of national liberation movements is that they emphasize the ethnical and cultural aspects. But when national liberation movements achieve their goals, fulfill their historical mission, their politics transform in just politics of a sovereign state and cease to exist as national liberation movements. This is what happened to Zionism, too. Zionism today does not exist, because it fulfilled its historical mission. What is called Zionism today is something entirely different: it's a mechanism of this "Jewish sovereignty", the paranoid machine which produces exclusivity and oppression. This society must overcome the anachronistic and dangerous "Zionism" and become truly egalitarian, just and inclusive society.
One student killed, three wounded at Arizona campus during fight (a)
from the article: I am a Zionist. And I am a Palestinian nationalist