Continued

Zionism originated as a nineteenth century romantic nationalist movement. Many Jews participated enthusiastically in national liberation movements like that of Poland against Russia. However, most of these movements wound up rejecting Jews so Jews developed their own romantic nationalistic movement.

from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romantic_nationalism

“By the turn of the century, ethnic self-determination had become an assumption held as being progressive and liberal. There were romantic nationalist movements for separation in Finland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, the Kingdom of Bavaria held apart from a united Germany, and Czech and Serb nationalism continued to trouble Imperial politics. The flowering of arts which drew inspiration from national epics and song continued unabated. The Zionist movement revived Hebrew, and began immigration to Eretz Yisrael, and Welsh and Irish tongues also experienced a poetic revival.”

During WW1 England made conflicting promises to Arabs and Jews. The promises of Arab and Jewish Independence turned into the forming of British and French mandates in the areas detached from the Turkish Empire.

Balfour in 1905 favoured the Alien Exclusion Act which kept Jews fleeing czarist oppression out of England, but in 1917 he issued the Balfour Declaration which set up Palestine as a Jewish homeland without consulting the people living in that area.

Zionism is Jewish self-determination, and it has the flaws of other self-determination movements.

As there are Palestinians who are committed to nonviolence there are Israeli Jews who sympathise with the Palestinians, are not in sympathy with the actions of their government and have been willing to go to prison for their views.

http://jfjfp.com/?tag=refuseniks tells about some of them.

I feel sympathy for both Arabs and Israeli Jews. I think a Palestinian state would probably be more repressive than Israel is. I would like to see a democratic, secular state in that area which would not discriminate among its citizens on the basis of ethnicity or religion, have separation of religion and state, an integrated public school system and civil marriage. It does not seem possible with the passions of the moment, but to me it seems the best chance for peace in that area.

Self-determination of a nation defined by common territory (such as Australia) is a different animal from self-determination of a race defined by common genetics (such as Israel).

Dear EJ,

The difference is that self-determination is not defined by a common territory. It takes more than that.

Self-determination is examined in detail at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-determination#Current_issues

Some Aborigines want a treaty matching race to territory such that there would be areas where non-Aborigines could not enter without Aborigines' consent. For reciprocal justice (or racial equality) that would also need to include areas which Aborigines could not enter without non-Aborigines' consent. This would throw Australia back by decades.

The Aborigines feel a unity with each other because they are a people. It's the fact that they consider themselves a people - they are connected by genetics - that they want the territory they are connected with. It's people that want self-determination. By itself territories don't want self-determination or anything else. The Jewish people are connected with the territory between the Jordan and the Mediterranean as are the Palestinians. The struggle is not between territories. It is between two peoples connected with the same territory. Self-determination proceeds from some form of unity that a people feel.