A lot of liberals will be against US money to Israel but also still believe that Israel itself deserves to exist and still should continue existing. I think this is the most basic Zionism - a fundamental acceptance, and even support for, the basic premise of the project on this level. So the "no longer an ethnostate" part can do a lot of work against that liberal Zionists tendency but still be incomplete in that it is wishes for a particular idealist outcome without focusing clearly on the end to Zionist oppression and for liberation of Palestine and Palestinians from occupation. This could look like several different things and does not need to be some westernized ideal of a liberal democracy to be justice and liberation. That is putting up roadblocks to liberation, saying it has to look one particular way, and sets them up to tut-tut if it doesn't go that direction.

I agree we don't need to give an inch to the "but of course October 7 was bad" crowd. I don't think Robinson fully agrees with that -- he has a more pacifistic approach to violence -- but a lot of that last article leans very heavily in that direction.

Sorry I don't think I understand what you mean.

Regarding the end of Zionism and the beginning of a free Palestine it could look like many different scenarios depending on how it is achieved. I think a much larger exodus than in South Africa is to be expected, as the social connections are much weaker (the project is much younger, people have less history) and the ethnic supremacist embedding is intense. The lack of that embedding will be catastrophic to the Zionist psyche. The idea that there is no point in staying under equitable conditions may be very popular. Even the threat of them might be enough. We already saw an impetus to do a version of this simply because the illusion or complete domination was so undermines by October 7.