At its core it is simply the legitimacy of the Israeli state.
You make it far too complicated. The legitimacy of the state of Israel is exactly what’s being debated. Many would argue the Zionists had no right to move to Palestine and even less right to steal Palestinian land to create their state. To this day Israeli settlers are still stealing more and more Palestinian land, and the Israeli government seems to be rather supportive of their activities.
Only the most radical versions contain the violent expansionist ideals.
Zionism led to the creation of the state of Israel and it was violent right from the start.
Unfortunately I fear that this is a perfect example of linguistic subterfuge
It really is not. You don’t have to agree with any of it, but the legitimacy of the state of Israel is not widely accepted in the region, they are seen as a sort of colonial power that have no right to be there and should be dismantled.
You make it far too complicated. The legitimacy of the state of Israel is exactly what’s being debated. Many would argue the Zionists had no right to move to Palestine and even less right to steal Palestinian land to create their state. To this day Israeli settlers are still stealing more and more Palestinian land, and the Israeli government seems to be rather supportive of their activities.
Zionism led to the creation of the state of Israel and it was violent right from the start.
It really is not. You don’t have to agree with any of it, but the legitimacy of the state of Israel is not widely accepted in the region, they are seen as a sort of colonial power that have no right to be there and should be dismantled.
So paint your picture for me how you believe Israel is dismantled peacefully.