47. What Do Those Who Claim Zionism Is Colonialism Overlook? Tuvia Friling The historical, methodological, ideological, and political background The debate over whether the Zionist movement is just one more incarnation of colo- nialism comes down to a polemic between the so-called “new historians” and “crit- ical sociologists” on the one hand and the “establishment historians and sociolo- gists” on the other. The debate, pursued in both public and scholarly forums, largely reduces to arguing the extent to which the Zionist revolution has clean hands, the legitimacy of the State of Israel, and the ways in which the revolution was implemented in practice. It is a tense and potent clash involving not just histor- ians and sociologists but also literary figures and journalists, both those with aca- demic positions and those outside the academy. The group I will call the “affirming post-Zionists” argue that Zionism played a vital role in the Jewish people’s history, but that it has nearly achieved its goals, or has already, 1 and has thus become re- dundant. 2 The anti-Zionists, or what I will call “denying post-Zionists,” maintain that Zionism has been a negative force in Jewish history, the State of Israel, and the Middle East. That being the case, it would have been better had Zionism never been born. But, since what is done is hard to undo, the State of Israel needs to be disman- tled as quickly as possible, or at the very least decent people should divest them- selves of it. In the opinion of this faction, Israel, Zionism’s principle product, does not stand up to scholarly and moral criticism, and it is thus imperative that it van- ish, just as has happened with malign regimes and political and social entities such as South African apartheid. 3 Those who reject this comparison note that the denying post-Zionists disregard the costs paid by other peoples, even the best of them, in the process of nation and society-building. Furthermore, they overlook the opposition of a majority of the Zionist camp, throughout its spectrum, to viewing the concepts of jus sanguinis – the right of blood – and jus soli – right of soil as absolute, exclud- ing all other claims to the land. With this more malleable and relative perspective on the Jewish claim to the Land of Israel, the Zionist mainstream, whatever its dis- This paper was completed in September 2014. This article is based mainly on Friling 2003 and its participating scholars. 1 Ginossar and Bareli 1996, 3–13. 2 Katz-Freiman 1996, 124–126. 3 Ginossar and Bareli 1996, 3–13.