I read your response with interest (thank you for taking the time to write it) and you do make a compelling argument as to why equating Zionism with Nazism might not be an apt comparison. Here are a few more thoughts I have based on some of your comments:
"Zionism was not predicated on displacing others"
Where did the Palestinian refugees now confined to Gaza and the West Bank come from? I doubt they all moved there voluntarily after selling their land legally, so surely SOME forced/involuntary displacement occurred somewhere along the way.
"Far from seeking conflict, early Zionists hoped to create a foundation for peaceful coexistence, with cooperation and development as central goals."
I'm curious what your thoughts are on the various Jewish terror groups like Lehi, Irgun and others described here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionist_political_violence
"Israel’s security challenges stem primarily from its neighbors' refusal to accept its right to exist"
I think blaming the conflict entirely on the hostility of neighbors is not really fair or honest. Zionist provocations and intransigence have occurred too throughout this history. I'm sure an Arab would write a very different summary of this history, and I'm inclined to believe that the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.
"While controversial, the settlement issue is complex and tied to historical, legal, and security factors rather than a desire for “territorial conquest."
Is it really that complex? I think the settlers make it very clear what their aims and intent are: To claim more land for Israel, and to further deny the hopes for a Palestinian state by strategically placing these illegal settlements in a way that disrupts the continuity of Palestinian communities. The goal is to create a situation where there are so many Jewish settlements on the land Palestinians wish to establish their independent state on, that it will be too intractable of a situation to reverse, thus expanding the land settled by Jews in the Jewish state in order to deny Palestinians theirs.
"Conflating settlement policy with Nazism’s racial expansionism is inflammatory and totally false"
I'm curious if you have any thoughts on the notion of 'Greater Israel'. It reminds me a lot of 'Manifest Destiny', which used to describe the 'inevitability' of US territorial expansion
https://www.juancole.com/2024/02/advocates-opportunity-expansion.html
"Denying Israel’s right to a Jewish identity while accepting the national identities of other countries is hypocritical"
For me, the important distinction is whether this national identity is one that can be shared by all living within the nation, or confined to one very specific ethnicity or religion. I think predicating 'Jewish Identity' on a demand for a separate country founded on Jewish religious principles is misleading - and one not all Jews agree with. One can maintain a 'Jewish Identity' while living in the United States, for example (as millions of Jews living in the US do). Why is it necessary for each religion to have its own country?
I'm critical of other countries that base their identity around being religious theocracies - not just Israel. This is one of the fundamental criticisms of Iran. India has recently been veering more towards Hindu Nationalism lately and this also is problematic. Buddhist Nationalists in Myanmar have been engaged in extremist violence. I'm a very vocal critic of those in the US who are trying to turn the US into a religious theocracy as well.
In contrast, countries that manage to achieve high levels of religious coexistence, harmony and freedom tend to be secular countries that do not play 'favorites' when it comes to religion, but allow all people to exercise their religion in true equality.
Albania was recently lauded by the Pope for being a great example of a country where multiple religions live in harmony with very little strife. Again, the pattern for success seems to be a country with a religiously-agnostic secular identity, that guarantees religious freedom and rights for all.
"Zionism isn't about religious supremacy; it’s about preserving a safe and self-governed space for Jews, who have faced repeated existential threats globally."
I can't help but think that though the motivation for Zionism is understandably steeped notionally in the desire for self-determination and security, there is an element of superiority as well, as anyone living in the Jewish State of Israel will ultimately need to show deference to this one particular religion as it is ultimately the national identity. This is inherently alienating to those not of the Jewish faith and fundamentally at odds with true equality. But again, I can't help but wonder if that's the point: A place where Jews can have self-determination and security, but also feel superiority, where Jewish symbology, icons, and traditions are intertwined with the laws and customs of the land above all other beliefs and religions.
In contrast, using my own country once again - the US is fundamentally different. No religion is the law of the land (though many Christian nationalists wish theirs was), and no religious symbol is given preference on our flag. This makes it a little easier to achieve religious coexistence as no one feels as if the government is playing 'favorites' when it comes to religious freedom and laws.
"Israel’s Declaration of Independence explicitly promises equal rights for all citizens, including Arabs, who participate fully in Israeli society."
I think this is misleading at best, but I think the best source of information on whether Arabs get to participate 'fully' in Israeli society would be an Arab living in Israel, so if happen to interact or meet one one day, I'd be interested in their thoughts on this.
It's also important to point out that this applies only to citizens. Arabs in Gaza, the West Bank, and those that were displaced (although you seem to deny this never happened which conflicts with my own research) aren't granted citizen status.
So in practice, those not citizens but effectively under Israeli control, or in occupied areas such as Hebron have very few rights and freedoms. An Arab in Gaza cannot travel to Tel Aviv - this is absolutely forbidden. Arabs in places like Hebron live in apartheid conditions, with maps indicating roads where Arabs can and can't walk, and checkpoints they must pass through just to leave their homes.
Arabs in Israel are not allowed to marry Jews, as this is seen as a threat to the Jewish Identity. This is something that does veer uncomfortably close to very racist 'racial purity' laws. Interracial marriages were banned in the US as well in some states up until around 1970, due to the US also being an apartheid state during the Jim Crow era. But, at least the US did end the practice of discriminating against marriage on racial lines, and there is no stipulations on what religion one must be to marry. This is one aspect where I don't think Israel is fully demonstrating 'equal rights for all citizens, including Arabs'.
Israel's desire to define its national identity solely on its 'Jewishness' is also problematic for democracy, especially when the Jewish desire for self-determination and a Jewish identity is at odds with equal rights. For example, there are currently 10 Arab members of the Knesset (out of 120 seats). What would happen if - theoretically - more Arabs started being elected, to the point where there were 50 or 60? Would there be a panic about the loss of 'self-determination' if non-Jews gained a significant chunk of the seats? Would non-democratic measures be put into place to ensure that the majority of the seats remain Jewish? I think this is a valid thing to wonder, given that things like the restrictions on marriage are already in place in order to preserve the 'Jewish Identity' of the country.
"Israel’s legal framework provides rights and representation to all citizens, Jewish and non-Jewish alike"
Sure, except when it comes to things like marriage, and structural discrimination. That's another problem with a country that forges an identity through religion alone. Are Arabs unofficially passed up for jobs, housing, and discriminated against, despite the legal framework? Structural racism is still a problem in the US, even 50 years after the end of Jim Crow, so I would be very surprised if Arabs in Israel don't face similar challenges:
https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/what-know-about-arab-citizens-israel
My intent with this response is not to arbitrarily criticize Israel, but to point out that though I may have been wrong to agree with the equating of Zionism with Nazi-ism, there are still some things about the ideology of Zionism that seem problematic and in conflict with its claims of wishing to promote equality, coexistence and democracy. I can't help but to conclude that Israel does bear some of the responsibility in this conflict, especially in how the Arabs and Palestinians have been treated and continue to be treated.
This of course does not excuse or condone terrorism towards Israel. But, I think Israel has certainly done its fair shore of provoking conflict and behaving belligerently as well - especially under the current far-right coalition leadership who are aggressively pursing further polices that marginalize Arab citizens.
I wonder if the Zionist cause to be a safe haven has - ironically and tragically - actually resulted in a state that is one the least safe for Jews, as I explain here in a related comment:
