Lower-Case zionism

Robert J. Lewis introduces the novel (at least for me) idea of lower-case, or generic zionism:

Reduced to what is universal in its objectives, zionism is the appeal of a people (identified by either race, religion, ethnicity, language or combination thereof) for a special territorial dispensation necessitated by imminent threat.

It asserts that without recourse to sovereignty, the threatened group risks obliteration through either annihilation or assimilation or combination thereof. Throughout history, there have been many peoples and cultures that have disappeared from the face of the earth because they were not able to negotiate for themselves that special territorial dispensation upon which self-preservation is predicated. Thus, we speak of zionism as a threatened people’s unalienable right – in practice rarely secured -- to selfhood. Since no nation or identity is exempt from the vagaries of history, we are all implicated in the zionist prerogative in that we all recognize the legitimacy and right of an endangered people to defend and preserve itself.

For all that I identify with the state of exile, I support the existence of the state of Israel. I do so for practical, not religious or ideological reasons. Practically speaking, stateless minorities are treated like dirt. How are the Gypsies doing in Eastern Europe? How are the Assyrians doing in Iraq? History gives no reason to trust the hospitality of Slavs or Muslims. Jews are tolerated in small numbers, but if all of Israel were to move to France, Le Pen would be acclaimed president-for-life.

Israel used to be a model for other peoples, a light unto the nations. Marcus Garvey called for black Zionism. The Central African Republic tried to identify itself as the "Israel of Africa" like it was a good thing! Now the dispossessed are united in their rancour toward their fellow dispossessed done good. Lewis identifies one contributing factor to the change in perception:

From 1948 to the present, Israel’s discombobulating silence in respect to the plight of the Roma, the Tutsis, the Srebrenicans and the Darfurians, to name a few, begs the question of why, when it could have been so easily otherwise. Why has the nation of Israel, born in the ashes of the holocaust, squandered one public relations opportunity after another with which it could have cumulatively ingratiated itself into world favour -- instead of world scorn?

My belief is that Israel should offer the "right of return" to the persecuted minorities of the Middle East and all the Roma remaining in Europe instead of well-off fanatics from Brooklyn. Also, the white people who fear the extinction of their race should be offered a plot of land just for hilarity's sake.

Why not grant citizenship to the Palestinians then? Lewis remarks:

Since zionism is a natural first response of an endangered people to an imminent threat, survival trumps all other considerations, which can render the principles of democracy a luxury some zionisms cannot afford if it means the disappearance of the people (culture and institutions) the zionism was meant to safeguard. In Israel, for example, if the Palestinian minority (the putative enemy within), hostile to Jews and the state of Israel, were to become a majority, they would terminate the Israeli state, undermining the entire raison d’être of the spirit which gave birth to the nation.

Some people, like Anglo-Saxons and Indians, are generally friendly to minorities. Some people, like Slavs and Muslims, are generally cruel to minorities. The Palestinians should get a homeland, since they imagine themselves a people, but given the methods they've employed in their "resistance," they should not be trusted with rule over other peoples. Their zionism cannot come at the expense of the originating model.