If I can “self-determinate”, why can’t I say that the current state of Israel is the fulfillment of the vision of the prophets and the principles of Judaism as an ethnic-religious community? Just because secularists led the Zionist movement means that no one else can define Zionism in another, more traditional fashion?

And while you do deride the dualism of the Jewish residents of Yesha to argue both ideology and security, the fact of the matter is that without the territory of Judea and Samaria, the physical future of the state (forget about the kulterkampf, etc.) is unassured. To evacuate us from Yesha will not improve Israel’s defense ability unless, of course, you argue that if all Jews have to leave Yesha, then perhaps all Arabs need move to the new “Palestine”? I am not for that and I doubt if you would be. If so, the internal demographic probelm of Israel in its pre-67 borders bodes no better a future in the long run without Yesha.

Do you deny that there was a fairly significant imperative to move to Israel, acquire land, and create vibrant Jewish settlements? Hell, I was raised on old Zionist literature and songs (my grandparents are card-carrying Labor Zionists), and pretty much all of it either focuses on agriculture, social imperatives, or land/pioneering. Yes, perhaps that higher policy thinkers in Zionism realized this was all part of a strategy to create a strong, viable, self-determining Jewish state… but that hardly means that Zionism didn’t include its heavily stressed methodology of settling the land.

Current day settlers in the West Bank feel that they are only continuing that tradition. They are taking the place of traditional border communities, in providing safety for Israelis further into the heart of Israel (an argument that was previously advanced by the Israeli government), they are redeeming land they see to be barren and unused, etc.

Oh, sure, there are settlements that violate these ideas… and we can certainly argue about whether settlements actually are doing any good on a larger perspective. I’m skeptical about many of them, myself. Nonetheless, the point I’m trying to make is that the motivations of settlers are not necessarily at odds with the tenets of Zionism.

I’m personally troubled by all of the people who seem intent on restricting the definition of Zionism to include their particular world-view. On the right, settlers feel they are the true successors to Zionism, and everyone else (particularly leftists) is accused of post-Zionism or whatever the terms are. On the left, people like to argue that settlers are perverting Zionism for other ends.

While I admit there is some validity to both of these arguments, at least for some members of each side, I feel that we should try not to be so exclusionary in our vision of Zionism. Does each brand truly believe that they want to improve and strengthen the Jewish state? Yes! Then let us focus upon our points of agreement, and try to hash out where our ideas on implementation and the best way to achieve Zionist goals can reach a compromise. Simply saying ‘oh, group X isn’t Zionist’ is a good way to alienate said group, and completely eliminates any chance of accord. Now is that a Zionist way to achieve Jewish unity in a Jewish state? I think not.

Daniel Pipes: Can the Leopard Change Its Spots?
http://ezinearticles.com/?&id=168909

Shimon Peres has No Clothes: Where’s the Peace?
http://ezinearticles.com/?&id=202601