[compsciphd]

a few points

1) I don't think your limitation of zionism to simply "nationalism" is correct. As I wrote, there were many self described "zionists" (especially in pre-state days) who weren't "jewish nationalists", i.e. their goal wasn't specifically a jewish state, but jewish settlement in a binational state, i.e. their goal was the return of the jewish people to their indigenous homeland, the birthplace of the culture and peoplehood). By restricting it to jewish nationalism (to the exclusion of others), one limits what zionism means.

see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brit_Shalom_(political_organiz... or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ihud for examples of "dissident" zionist thought in pre-state days.

2) while I agree that one doesn't have to be a "nationalist" (in a pejorative view of the term) to support the continued existence of an existing state. I think most people who actively support Israel (and institutions in Israel) are not simply being "pragmatic" about that doing that is because its less human suffering, they view that its continued existence is a net positive to the world.

to rephrase the concept, with your next paragraph of "consistent anti-nationalists". Yea, one can oppose all forms of nationalism, but if one considers themselves a "consistent ant-nationalist opposed to all forms of nationalism", but supports palestinian nationalism / excuses violence as valid forms of "resistance", I'd argue that one isn't a "consistent anti-nationalist". i.e. I personally see very few "consistent anti-nationalists".

I also agree that one doesn't have to be a consistent "nationalist" per the next paragraph. I'm certainly not. If one wants to claim that that they aren't "anti-nationalist", but that they simply value palestinian nationalism over jewish nationalism, I get that.

In terms of Hareidi religious anti-zionism

1) outside of satmar affiliated ones, they don't have a consistent view of what it means to be anti-zionist today (i.e. I'd argue that they are more non-zionist jewish nationalists, vs anti-zionist).

2) Even with satmar, to many people who are virulent opponents of Israel (ex: who view zionist as a pejorative), they would view Satmar members, as you describe their philosophy (or opposing any efforts to harm the states existence) as "zionists".

In practice, i believe this demonstrates, that "zionism" (to people virulenty opposed to the state of Israel) is just a code word for anti-semitism, and is just a safe way for people to demonstrate their anti-jewish animus, and therefore further demonstrates the necessity of the modern state of Israel. In practice, I see very little "anti-israel" protests that don't devolve into such usages.

[skissane]

I don't think it is possible to come up with a definition of "Zionism" which will please everybody. But defining it as "Jewish nationalism" is very mainstream – both Encyclopaedia Britannica and Wikipedia open their articles on "Zionism" by framing it as a form of nationalism.

If some binationalists want to call themselves "Zionists", it isn't my place to tell them they can't call themselves that. But other binationalists disagree. For example, Amnon Raz-Krakotzkin (professor of Jewish History at Ben-Gurion University) is a binationalist, and I've read some of his writings, and he is rather critical of Zionism, and presents binationalism more as an alternative to Zionism than as a form of it.

I don't agree that donating money to a school in Israel aimed at promoting peaceful Arab-Jewish coexistence necessarily implies any particular position on whether the State of Israel should exist. If someone donated money to a school in Northern Ireland promoting peaceful Catholic-Protestant coexistence, I wouldn't assume that donation implied any particular position on the future constitutional status of Northern Ireland (whether it should remain part of the UK, or become part of a united Ireland, or even some third option such as shared sovereignty or independence).

I agree that a consistent antinationalist can't support Palestinian nationalism, but I think such people exist. I already mentioned Raz-Krakotzkin. In principle, I support neither Zionism nor Palestinian nationalism, but nowadays my own emotional sympathies are more with the Israeli side. That said, I get annoyed by Zionist language such as "Israel's right to exist" because frankly speaking I don't think any state has a "right to exist". But saying that doesn't mean I support the dreams some have of "dismantling" Israel–I think that would very likely end in genocide

I don't think non-Satmar-affiliated Haredim are being "inconsistent". Both sides agree that the establishment of the secular State of Israel was a mistake, but now it exists, it is a fait accompli, and it would be wrong to permit its enemies to destroy it. Where they disagree, is on how far one can permissibly go in relating to it (such as by accepting money from it or participating in its elections). I don't think either camp is being inconsistent, they just have a difference of moral and halachic opinion. There are similar debates–over how far you can go in compromising with a practical reality which you believe to be ultimately wrong–in other religions too.

Finally, I don't think we should allow the word "Zionist" to be defined by those who use it as a pejorative. People who rant about "Zionist Occupation Government", etc, are just using "Zionist" as a codeword for "Jewish", in order to obscure their own antisemitism. They aren't saying anything useful, and so should just be ignored. But non-pejorative critics of Zionism, from Joel Teitelbaum to Amnon Raz-Krakotzkin, are worth listening to, whether they ultimately are right or wrong.

[compsciphd]

I'd argue that I'm not convinced that many hareidim (especially those on the street, as opposed to the thinkers) actually believe that state of Israel's creation was a mistake anymore (and in practice, even at the time of the creation, I'm unsure many felt that way, there was lots of celebrations in 1947 with UN vote and in May 1948 even amongst people we would today consider chareidi). Even amongst the thinkers this is a complicated question. I don't think its simply (anymore at least) the fact that it exists. Hence why I view it as a complicated question in terms of if they are zionists or not. Their anti-zionism (to me), seems more performative than practical. i.e. the refusal to say the prayer for the state of israel or the IDF (though these are both commonly said in USA synagogues that are more aligned with the chareidi world). When it comes to practice, what the state means to them, its not simply anymore a matter of it be a shame for it to be destroyed / "bad" things would happen to members of our people.

I'd differentiate this chareidi "zionism" that we see practiced from "religious" zionism in that their zionism is more secular, without ascribing religious significance to the state. i.e. while the "religious zionism" sector ascribes religious, messianic, meaning to the state and hence would suffer an internal rupture if the state would fall, the chareidim whose "zionism" I'd argue is more simply "secular/national" would simply view it as part of the ebb and flow of jewish history.

[skissane]

> even at the time of the creation, I'm unsure many felt that way, there was lots of celebrations in 1947 with UN vote and in May 1948 even amongst people we would today consider chareidi)

There are Haredi Religious Zionists, the Hardal - in particular the followers of Rabbi Zvi Thau, his students at the Har Hamor Yeshiva he founded in Jerusalem, and the Noam political party for which he serves as spiritual leader.

But although the term “Hardal” has only been heard in recent decades, there has always been a “very frum” subset of Religious Zionism. There is a direct line going from Rabbi Zvi Thau, to the Mercaz HaRav Yeshiva in Jerusalem where Thau held a leadership position for decades before splitting off to found his own yeshiva, to Thau’s mentor Rabbi Zvi Yehuda Kook, and in turn to his mentor’s father and the founder of Mercaz HaRaz, Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook, first Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi of Mandatory Palestine.

Among the strictly Orthodox (“Haredi”), although Satmar-style hardline anti-Zionism and “non-Zionism” (which can be interpreted as “soft anti-Zionism”) have traditionally been the clear majority, there has always been a Religious Zionist minority, going back to the early 20th century. Religious Zionism has always contained a spectrum of observance from Haredi-style strictness through to “dati lite” laxity. So some of the people you are talking about were arguably “proto-Hardal” or “Hardal avant la lettre”

Complicating the matter is there has definitely been some movement in recent decades from the “non-Zionist”/“soft anti-Zionist” camp to Religious Zionism. A good example is the Sephardic Haredi party Shas, who used to identify as “non-Zionist” but in 2010 decided to join the World Zionist Organisation. Or similarly, Chabad is still technically “non-Zionist”, but with every passing year their “non-Zionism” appears ever harder to distinguish from actual Zionism. (But, keeping in mind that the Chabad of shluchim in Chabad houses is rather different from the Chabad of Crown Heights and Kfar Chabad, I’m not sure if that generalisation is equally true of both.)

Conversely, however, United Torah Judaism and Agudath Israel haven’t really changed their position - they still reject both secular Zionism and religious Zionism in principle, but are willing to engage in certain forms of cooperation with the State of Israel in practice. Rather than moving like Shas and Chabad have, they are staying where they are. In fact, I think the recent ratcheting up of the long-standing controversy in Israel over Haredi conscription is encouraging them to dig-in to their current position. (Although interestingly even Shas, despite embracing Religious Zionism on paper, is still opposing conscription for its followers, and urging them to engage in civil disobedience against it.)

[aguaviva]

I don't think it is possible to come up with a definition of "Zionism" which will please everybody.

Except most of these other definitions don't really matter to the current situation, right?

The one that does matter is Herzl's of course, which is the one that the State of Israel unequivocally operates on. More specifically the Jabotinskyian variants that have been the foundation of its consensus policy since 1967 (and much more firmly so since Begin).

[skissane]

I agree with you. Both Herzl and Zabotinsky saw Zionism as Jewish nationalism. Some "dissident Zionists" disagreed, but their views are irrelevant to the mainstream (and even many of the fringes) of contemporary Israeli politics.

Another example of "non-standard Zionism" was Canaanism [0], a 1940s outgrowth of Revisionist Zionism that wanted a Hebrew nationalism rather than a Jewish nationalism, and sought to include Arab Christians and Muslims on the condition that they start speaking Hebrew instead of Arabic, and adopt a new "Hebrew" ethnic identity in place of their pre-existing "Arab" one. But despite having significant influence on the development of Israeli art and Israeli literature, politically Canaanism was always a minuscule irrelevancy.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canaanism