i hope i dont need walls of text but ill try to explain myself:

The vague idea of zionism goes back to middle ages, largely connected to conpersecution of the jews, but the word zionism in the context of the modern state israel came up in 19th century as reaction to the ongoing and rising antisemitism in europe, later peaking in the mass murder (mostly industrialized) of 6 million jews by the nazis an their supporters until 1945. When great britain was overwhelmed with the ongoing conflicts between arabs and jews in palestine, they gave the mandate to the UNO. The partition of palestine into an arab and a jewish state was then decided upon by a large majority of UNO members states 1947 (the arab states surrounding except of jordania were already members at this time, but voted against). Shortly after the partition, the surrounding arab states attacked israel, israel won. The UNO organized an armistice agreement between israel and the surrounding states at the green line (new borders from 1949). This was the first and last expansion of the israeli borders, the UNO-States accepted with majority. Every expansion after that was condemned by UNO (as far as i know), also of course israels recent action in gaza.

The word zionism is used for the support of the foundation of a jewish secular state (not specified where or in which borders) in the direct context of conpersecution of jews. If you talk about the expansions after 1949 in political, historical or social studies, you usually dont use the word "zionism" or if you do, you call it "neo zionism" in the context of fundamentalistic jewish settlements.

The first thing is, if you use the word zionism in a series of KKK and Al-Qaeda, i find that highly problematic, if you support the foundation of a jewish state or not.

My second opinion is, that a movement, that supports anti-zionism or uses slogans like "from the river to the sea" is also problematic (also both if you support israels foundation in palestine or not, if you support it in the borders of 1947, 1949, or whatsoever), because at some point, especially if a long time has passed (in the case of anti-zionism around 80 years) you need to accept borders as they were kept after an armistice agreement. If this was under rightful circumstances or not. history is not fair, no or nearly no nation was new established peace- or rightful. The best we can do in modern times is to respect international law (this also applies to israel of course) and dont fight over borders that established a long time ago. an the best international instrument we have (i know its not perfect in many ways and its power is very limited) to solve those conflicts without a bloodshed is UNO. I take your example from your other post about native americans: i think we both agree, that the conquest (and many other things) of native americans by europeans were not rightful. Was it right to fight at these times for your freedom as native american? i think yes. was it advisable? i dont think so because of the massive military inequality. i get the concept of guerrilla warfare, but thats another topic. but the important question is: does it make sence, as a native american in the year 2026 to terrorize or fight or to reclaim national sovereignty from south to north america? i dont think so. Its a complicate question when to go back to accept a border, but doing it without any military chance, even with irans support (except of the possibility to terrorize civilians) is insane and leads to a bloodshed. this bloodshed of course also happens to civilians or those, who didnt decide to fight a guerrilla war against the supressors. i dont want to victim blame the massacre in palestine by israels government and its supporters and many violent settlers, also i dont want to blame the israeli victims from october 7th. So of course its not my moral right to decide, if and how palestinians fight when they are invaded as long as its compatible with international law, but fighting for the reclaim of land that was taken when noone now fighting was alive (what in my understanding anti-zionism is about) is catastrophic. if every border, expanded unlawful in the last 100 years was fought, the world was one (i say it again) bloodshed. i know that in our actual word borders matter, but what matters more is the people inside those borders. And an anti-zionist movement is not helping at all, not in theory and not in practice. It will not solve the border problem, the settler problem, or the arab minority in israel problem. and especially its not helping ending the war or the terrorism (both sides say the other sides warfare is terrorism). Anyway of course i support the end of the fascist israeli government or the bloodshed in palestine. israel highly depends on western financial and military support, so as a westerner, i guess this is the most easily accessible pressure point that I have to push israels politics back into international law and to strive to grant full sovereignty and state recognition to the remaining palestinian territories. A hungry or mutilated child doesnt care, if it lives under israeli or palestinian state law in peace.

Offtopic: What happend to Auth's comment? Deleting contrary opinions will lead to a circle jerk and both sides cant learn from each other.