The great Israeli writer and peacenik Amos Oz used to describe it as a family name, an umbrella for a wide range of radically different worldviews. Before Israel’s founding in 1948, you’d have cultural Zionists slugging it out with religious Zionists, Marxist Zionists raging against rightwing militaristic Zionists, all of them wholly at odds with the dominant group: socialist Zionists. What they had in common was the simple belief that Jews had the right of self-determination in their ancestral homeland, the land they had for millennia called
Eretz Yisrael, the Land of Israel, and which the rest of the world called Palestine.
To this day, that’s essentially what it means to be a Zionist – that you believe in a Jewish national home in some portion of historic Palestine. There are rightwing Zionists who think it should be in all of that land; there are leftwing Zionists who think it should be broadly within the much smaller boundaries that existed before the 1967 war and alongside a Palestinian state. But both groups are Zionists. The racist minister Itamar Ben-Gvir is a Zionist, but so are many of the Jewish and Israeli anti-occupation activists who volunteer to act as a “
protective presence”, putting their own bodies between settler extremists and Palestinian villagers in the West Bank. To brand everyone under that one umbrella as a racist shows a deep ignorance of what the word Zionism means and the sheer range of people who identify with it.