1/ Almost the entire spectrum of political scenarios for Israel-Palestine could be credibly presented as continuing and fulfilling the vision of Zionism - from a Kahanist state to a single unitary democratic state with limited Jewish cultural autonomy.

2/ Clearly this does not refer for the unlikely scenarios of the expulsion of Israeli Jews or their Arabisation - but pretty much for any political scenario that recognise Jewish identity could be presented as "Zionist".

3/ We can construct a credible Zionist genealogy of key texts and examples of praxis for all of them. These could be hegemonic forms of Zionism or Israeli state logic or dissenting voices and minority groups that were attached to their Zionist identity.

4/ This is one of the reasons for me, the term Zionism is not particularly useful, it's too fuzzy, it means too many things to too many people, in conceals some key disagreements within the Jewish "zionist" / anti-Zionist camp and agreements across this divide.

5/ We should also acknowledge the difference between Jewish *ideas* of Zionism, non/anti-Zionism and Palestinian *experience* of Zionism, as the ideology of their dispossession.

6/ There is a contemporary form of Greater Israel ideology, what I and others called "neo-Zionism", which is based on Jewish domination, is hegemonic in Israel/Palestine, and is supported by some diaspora groups and tolerated by others.

7/ This hegemonic model clearly continues some earlier Zionist praxis and thinking , but also offers new ones.

The question where one stands in relation to this model is more important, for me, than the question of whether one identifies as Zionist or not. /End