u/atbing24

I think the term “Zionist” should have died in 1948; that is the year the ideology achieved its goal. Abolitionism was largely achieved in the 19th century yet no one calls themselves an abolitionist today. In 1947 the British decided to split India in two, largely based on religion, a majority Hindu state named India, and a majority Muslim state named Pakistan. Many Indians even today may think the creation of Pakistan was flawed, unjust, or unnecessary in some way. Yet there is no term equivalent to “anti Zionism”, as Pakistan simply exists and isn’t going anywhere.
Zion is a certain hill in Jerusalem, but the name eventually became another term for the entire land of Israel. Originally Zionism was essentially the name for Jewish nationalism, consequentially desiring a state and more specifically in the original Jewish Homeland. The persistence of the term continued in Israel as Israelis loved the term, and were uncertain of Israel’s fate. Today to the typical Israeli, “Zionism” largely signals Israeli patriotism. 
However this persistence of the term allowed critics of Israel to label themselves as anti Zionists. Zionism today is simply one of those words that can be a great example of contemporary semantic drift as it means different things to different people. To anti Zionists, Zionism is effectively not much less than a slur. Sometimes it is even used not just for Israeli policy, but anyone complicit in Western power structures. As an example, when the President of the United States seized the authoritarian head of Venezuela, Nicolás Maduro, the acting Venezuelan president Delcy Rodríguez condemned the incident as an attack with a “Zionist” tint. Show up to a pro Palestinian protest in London with a Union Jack and I don't think you'll be very welcomed. But ask yourself, Why? Because a “Zionist” is one who would have fought aboriginal Australians, one who would have banished native Americans to Oklahoma, one who would have enslaved populations and remained wealthy oppressing them. The slave owner, the imperialist, the nationalist, the colonialist, the capitalist; the eternal exploiter.
Anti Zionism is often defined as the belief that the creation of Israel was unjust or flawed in some way. Yet to many of course, based on their interpretation of what “Zionism” is, it can easily encompass opposition to racism, imperialism, settler colonialism, genocide, and alike. And because the typical Israeli sees themselves as a proud Zionist today, one can easily face unjust discrimination. Sure, it’s technically not antisemitism, but a default “anti Israelism” is bad for the same reasons antisemitism is bad in the first place.

People who want Palestine to be freed, from the river to the sea, often get confronted. “From the river to the sea? Oh you mean all of it? You want to just delete Israel and its population of 10 million people?”

The response is usually honestly well meaning, they don’t desire to genocide the Israelis of course. They want one secular democratic Palestinian state. A free Palestine where Jews, Muslims, Christians, Druze, Samaritans, and atheists live together in peace. A state where Jews and Palestinians live together in prosperity. This of course is a utopia, yet not that far off from a state that as it turns out, already exists. A state where Jews and Palestinians are both equal citizens; both are doctors, politicians, lawyers, or judges, with complete equal rights. This state is largely secular and democratic, not in a utopia level way, but largely, yes. We both know the name of the state I'm talking about, and you may genuinely believe propaganda that Palestinians citizens aren't really treated equally. It’s propaganda, period.

One of the biggest things I wish the typical Western pro Palestinian will realize is that Palestinians aren’t Norwegians. Western leftists paint Palestinians as those fighting the right wing Zionists out of a desire for utopian progressive freedom. A free Palestine from the river to the sea controlled by Arabs won’t benefit atheists, Jews or queers as much as Israel hypothetically annexing the entire region regarding ethnic Palestinians. I do believe a large contributor to this delusion is an internal hatred of the West.

If you genuinely envision and strive towards a free democratic and secular state in Palestine, where Jews and Palestinians live side by side equally, you should support Israel.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is quite possibly the greatest culmination of many human complications and nuances regarding identity. Not necessarily in the modern facts of war itself, but regarding what is Zionism or Palestinian nationalism, regarding the demographic history of the region. Nations and what exactly they are, ethnic groups and what exactly they are, ethnoreligions and what exactly they are. When and how exactly do each of them form. What is identity and what forms it. What is indigeneity, how long until one is or no longer indigenous, and does it even matter? The topic is to these questions what trolley problems and alike are to moral ones. If one is to truly understand the great mystery, they ought to fully wrestle with these impossible questions.

The trolley problem forces us to confront that even something as basic and overlooked as “just don’t kill people” breaks down under real conditions. It’s supposed to be a mirror to the face that life isn’t actually that simple. Suddenly the answer to “what is the right thing to do” breaks down, and yet you still have to decide whether or not to pull the lever. Similarly, this topic forces us to confront that concepts like “nation”, “indigenous”, or “identity” are not fixed truths but interpretations that can often overlap, conflict, and both remain internally valid. It is the equivalent mirror to your face that the answer to a question like “what is indigeneity” isn’t simple.