>>Without repeating what I've written elsewhere in these comments, what is the acceptable way to express my belief that a majority jewish state isn't necessary for the continued existence of the jewish people?
I think you can say you are a supporter of "secular democratic states", and fight for that not just in the context of Israel but in the US and in Arab countries that practice sharia or disenfranchise their citizens, or do not have representative democracies. To call yourself "anti-Zionist" makes it seem like you are looking only at one possible set of injustices when really you are opposed to something that is happening across the world. Why should Israel be forced to amend itself unilaterally?
Why should Jews feel safe in other countries when you are not talking about how these other countries need to reform as well?
>>Where's the label for me?
Well, if you are talking to a bunch of friends or experts on the subject and you are comfortable with using the term "anti-Zionist" in that context, by all means - go for it.
But on a board like MyDD, or DKos, or other liberal blogs, or in the context of the Democratic party, I think that label is likely to be confusing at best, and harmful at worst.
Also, from the second article, I think both the PLO and Israel should not let talks be impeded by whether Israel needs to be recognized as a "Jewish state" - they should just recognize Israel's right to exist. If I were negotiating on the Israeli side I would drop that demand. If I were negotiating on the Palestinian side, I would agree to that precondition in order to move on to more substantive negotiations - the best Palestinian bet is to seek incremental change.
To call yourself "anti-Zionist" makes it seem like you are looking only at one possible set of injustices when really you are opposed to something that is happening across the world. Why should Israel be forced to amend itself unilaterally?
Well, I am anti-sharia and pro-secular democracies in general. But that's not the conversation. I don't think it's fair to say that it looks like I'm ignoring injustices. That's like the wingnuts who claim feminists don't care about women in Afghanistan because they don't raise it in every conversation about feminism.
Your choice of language "amend itself unilaterally" is genuinely odd, like it's being asked to abandon a weapon that remains in the hands of its enemies. Countries progress unilaterally all the time. It's the only way progress happens.
If I were negotiating on the Israeli side I would drop that demand.
I agree. And I thought the point of the second article was that Israel will not do so. The PLO agreed to recognize Israel's right to exist, and it wasn't good enough.
I think we share a great deal in common here and I appreciate you expanding on your points.
