Without reference to a fertile context, I do not understand the basis for the equation. As I understand it Zionism is essentially a 'catchall' for movements for Jewish independence. As a nationalist movement, it is far from unique. Are there not Iraqi, Syrian, Turkish, Iranian, Kurdish, Montenegrian, etc, etc, etc. nationalist movements, realized and not? If the Iranian nationalists have realized their state in an Islamic Republic, does it not (at least in the basic fact thereof) have a character the same as Zionism, as a nationalistic movement? Then why is it that among all the plethora of Nationalistic movements, this unique one is singled out for approbrium, as racist, exclusionary and discriminatory? Are other nationalist movements not? If I were in Iran, could I keep my own little state independent and exclude it from the Islamic Republic? Why is Zionism singled out, uniquely? Although all nationalistic movements, in their realization, have exclusionary elements (after all, my block cannot cecede from the Iranian Islamic Republic if there is to effectively be such thing), compared to many others, and most especially those of some Islamic nations in the Middle East, Zionism seems more innocent of a charge of racism than most. Have the Israelis institutionalized discrimination against non-Jews? Are Islamic and Christian Israelis deprived of their legal status? Are they the Dihimmis of the Zionists? It seems Israel has been much more inclusionary that most states, not less. Why, when they seem among the least discriminatory, are they branded 'racist'? Why whould all the peoples of the Earth have the right to nationalist aspirations except the Jews? Perhaps one of those foisting this equivalancy here can answer these questions?
Egypt to hold parliamentary election in 2 phases starting Oct 18-19 (Reuters)
from the article: A still-stained UN