Susuto

@ Kangalanatolian, Do you want to discuss the definition of Zionism or the moral justification for Zionism?

Zionism says that the Jews have a permanent right to the land that they lived in 2000 years ago, even if other people must be displaced for the Jews to re-occupy ancient Israel. Now for Zionism to work, we need to be clear about what constitutes a Jew. It is not racial apparently for most of the Palestinians are more closely related genetically to the ancient Jews than the modern Jews that evict the Palestinians. Therefore it must mean followers of a certain religion.

So onto the moral justification:
The trouble with the moral justification of Zionism, among many others, is the accepted ideal of the universality of morals. That means that what is right for you should be right for him and for her and for me as well. So if Zionism is morally defensible it should be able to be applied by other religions around the world. Can we do that?

Followers of the Iriquois religion should have title to all of western New York state. (they are also genetically the same people as those that were displaced. That is the case throughout the new world. There would be no land for Christians of European dissent in the Americas)
The Greek Orthodox should have claim to all of Anatolia
The Druids should have claim to England and France.
The Christians should have title to all of the area surrounding the Meditarreanean (except perhaps Israel, because the Jews were there first, but then Jesus was the messiah to the Jews that some didn’t accept….. oh my it gets complicated)
The Zorastrans (there still are some left) should hold title to Iran and Iraq

Obviously the ancient title to land cannot be applied universally and therefore it is a morally invalid argument for the displacement of the Palestinians.