Comradeship // Freechat

That’s a good question. There were fascist Zionists, and there are certainly neofascist strands in Zionism today, but it is an exaggeration to refer to Zionism per se as fascist. Rather, Zionism is colonialist, just like Fascism was. Fascism was the militarist, predominantly petty‐bourgeois movement that the haute‐bourgeoisie promoted to institutional power in order to strengthen capitalism, which involved eliminating the proletariat’s concessions. Colonialism was also part of the job, though, as the Fascists inherited a colonial empire and were outraged when the Entente failed to give the Kingdom of Italy more land as reward for helping win WWI.

Zionism emerged from the same soil, not just geographically but also in terms of how it likewise recommended colonialism by any means necessary. It was (and still is) a capitulation to antisemitism: the Zionists believed that Jews and gentiles were incompatible, so separatism was necessary and Jews had to settle in Patagonia, Uganda, or Palestine. The Zionists wanted a formidable neocolony, but not necessarily a superpower that could compete with other empires.

Compared to the Fascists, who were adventurer‐conquerors, the Zionists were and still are much less ambitious. As far as I know, the Zionists haven’t tried to extinguish class‐consciousness through a merciless crackdown on proletarian organizations either (unless the organizations were Palestinian).

That said, the régime has been unafraid to grant neofascists some political power (similar to how the Kingdom of Italy and the Weimar Republic allowed fascists in parliaments), and early on it did receive support from the Fascist empires, so I think that it is at least easy to understand why people consider Zionism per se fascist even if it be an exaggeration. For now, I believe that ‘parafascist’ would be an accurater description of the neocolony.