Hmm this is very strange. When I click on the link to read the article, even though it says it is via haaretz in the menu bar it sends me to here http://www.w3.org/Protocols/ and, uh, definitely not there.

Huh. Weird. But the link is fixed now - I checked.

Yes, Jill's article is very well balanced and written! As far as this professors opinion however, I think that Dennis Prager, a political and religious commentator in the US says it well:

Imagine someone saying that he seeks the destruction of Italy because he regards Italian national identity as racist. Further, imagine that this person constantly denies being anti-Italian, because he does not hate all Italians, only Italy and all those who believe Italy should exist.

Now substitute "Jewish" for "Italian" and "Israel" for "Italy" and you understand the absurdity of the argument that one can be anti-Zionist but not anti-Jewish.

The times are too fraught to permit gentle, smiling patience with what is at best muddled thinking and very possibly a sinister racism cloaked in political correctness. Let's keep our minds clear: to be anti-Zionist is to single out the Jews as being the only nation who shouldn't enjoy national self-determination. That a certain anti-Zionist claims to have nothing against individual Israelis is neither here nor there. I find the whole thing distasteful in the extreme.

I found this interview very disturbing. While I can understand a distinction between anti-Israel sentiment and anti-Semitism, I find it difficult to understand how someone can be anti-Zionism, yet at the same time be pro-Israel. While every individual has their own personal definition of Zionism, the one concept that most people agree on, if nothing else, is support for Israel. Mr Neslin's beliefs are confusing at best and disturbing at worst, as it demonstrates that he clearly doesn't understand Zionism even at its most basic level.

And yes, Jill is an excellent writer! :-)

I thought it was an interesting article and interview.
I agree that his self-definition is problematic - at best smug, at worst hypocritically prejudiced.
BUT Lisa's post was not about Neslen but about Jill's article, and the beauty of the article was that it leaves that problematic very open. It neither criticizes nor endorses it, but leaves it on the page for the reader to begin to play with. She does praise aspects of the book, but pointedly without endorsing its author's agenda, which she in fact subtlely questions via the issue of Palestinian Israelis/ Israeli Arabs.

(I too have problems with political Zionism, but I have a far bigger problem with someone who defines themselves as "anti-Zionist" - you can have issues with something without being "anti". But Bundist's were always a bit wack - just like the Zionists!)

All in all,
well done, Jill!

Indeed I found the article well-written and fair.

She mostly allows the subject to speak for himself, which is the best way.

Having said that, the subject is . . . well, I have few nice things to say about his opinions.

But that's a comment on the subject of the article, not on Jill's reporting/writing abilities.

Lisa, help me out here. I'm watching all of this from a far distance - Australia, to be precise - so maybe I have this all wrong. But how can you be at the one time pro-Israel and anti-Zionist? Israel exists (does it not?) by virtue of Zionism - the ancient longing of the Jews for a safe homeland.

I've read and combated with lots of people around the blogosophere who say they are not anti-Semitic, only anti-Zionist. My question to them - seldom answered - has been: well, as an anti-Zionist, you cannot accept the legitimacy of the Jewish state, and aspire to its disestablishment. True or false?

Some people, only a few, will come right out and say, yep, that's right, Israel shouldn't be there, maybe it should be in New York. Most just prevaricate.

I mean, you can oppose the settlements in the occupied territories, you can oppose the actual occupation of the occupied territories, you can oppose targeted asssassinations, you can have grave doubts about the current offensive in Gaza (most of these are true in my own case) - but you can't gloss that opposition as 'anti-Zionist'. It just means you disagree with the government's policies.

You can oppose various policies of the current and past Israeli governments on humanitarian grounds, on pacifistic grounds, on anti-colonial grounds, on religious grounds, on human rights and common decency grounds. But you can't, as it seems to me, do it on anti-Zionist grounds, because such denies the right of Israel to exist.

Or does Zionism mean something completely different to what I think it means?

Rob, you'll have to take your question up with Arthur Neslen. I think his views are hugely problematic, to put it mildly. But my post is about the quality of Jill's writing, not Mr. Neslen's political opinions. ;)

Why didn't your government ban this guy from coming into your country?

Go Jill. Sisters here in Australia commend you for reporting a balanced, if tragic view of what is going down over there. My heart is heavy for the mothers, children and fathers on every side who just want to live a peaceful life.
One good thing about the 'net is it's ability to broadcast a different view and a glimpse of hope from those not filled with hate, power-craze and emnity. My sad if peaceful hopes with you all...