Yup, and must include a negotiated two-state solution all the new players that are included in the so-called, normalisation, who must also insist this is a pathway they can all agree with and progress with every instrument they can individually or collectively apply/bring to bear!
Alan B.

Zionism doesn't have to be like what we have seen more recently ; but Likud are the inheritors of the traditions of Irgun and Revisionism. Judah Magnes showed a different kind of Zionism is possible. And more like him is what we need today. Jews who recognise the Palestinians are human beings with human rights - and that demands engagement and compromise

Zionism wasn't originally strictly about a "Jewish State" as much as it was about establishing a "Jewish National Home" ; The Holocaust changed everything ; but even a state where Jews control the apparatus of force can be 'binational' if the remainder of the State apparatus is binational ; shared between Jews and Palestinians. Such a state can institutionalise co-determination between the two national communities.

Israel could become democratic. It could not only recognise the civil rights of non-Jews but also give equal validity to all branches of Judaism. It could also allow civil marriage and have an integrated public school system. It could do all that and still be a Jewish homeland.

Israel is the only democratic country in the middle east which gives the vote to non-jews in its recognised territory. The people have built a Jewish homeland in spite of the genocidal attempts of its neighbours. Its policies are based on the realism of the status quo and the dreams of activists like Judah Magnes are as much fantasy as a functioning Marxist state.

What few remember, is that the original founders of Israel did not mean to make it a Jewish home/state, but a place to establish and develop the Hebrew culture. It was the holocaust that changed everything, following which the world instead supported a Jewish state out of pity for the Jewish refugees.

For the founders of Israel this was an unhappy but necessary/practical compromise, for soon every willing Jewish immigrant was needed to fight the Arab resistance.

Without a common culture, what is the point in having a shared home/state? Is it worthwhile just on the grounds of ethnic fears, preparing for the next Hitler [which would likely never come again]? What a miserable situation to have to share a home only out of fear (that would often indicate domestic violence)!

Why would people who cherish the Western/European culture and its values want to live in the Middle-East? wouldn't it be preferable for them to live in Europe, America or Australia, away from these stupid wars with the Arabs/Palestinians?

Israel could become many things and there surely are Jews (and others) outside Israel who wish it to turn around their way, but if Israel is to become anything but what it is, a home for the Hebrew culture, then why should it exist at all?

It is difficult to find a country more democratic than Israel, with Australia and the USA left far behind. While there are Jews (and Israelis!) who hate the preferences of the majority of Israeli voters, this does not make Israel any less democratic.

Apparently, there is no agreed upon definition of democracy. With its denial of the vote to women, slaves and those considered foreigners even though their ancestors may have been in Athens for many generation ancient, democratic Athens would not be considered a democracy by today's standards. However, we all don't agree on what defines current standards of democracy. By my standards of democracy Israel is not a democracy. By some other standards it is a democracy.