I can completely understand and agree with the notion that Jews have a right to a homeland, and that it is not my place to dispute if Jewish people say that their religion requires Israel to be their homeland. While at the same time, I can also understand and sympathize with people who find it hard to accept that someone else's religion requires what they perceive to be their homeland to be violently taken away, and to resist that. In essence, both sides have a defensible position in theory, and this is why the issue is so hard.
The problem is that Zionism as a theory was resolved 75 years ago with Israel defeating Arab armies and securing its viability except for what settlers are doing in the West Bank. Israel is a country with 7 million Jews who were mostly born there or arrived as refugees from ethnic cleansing and either it stays a country with 7 million Jews or else “Palestine is free from the river to the sea” and the Jews disappear. If the argument is over Zionism as a justification for settlements in the West Bank, well I’m a Zionist and I think that’s indefensible and bad and should stop.
I am not sure what is meant by the highlighted phrase. It sounds like an omninous euphemism, but it is so vague that it doesn't really shed much light.
At one point early in the conflict, I seem to remember that almost everyone on the Forum agreed that Israel should be a secular, democratic state with equal rights for Jews, Christians, and Arabs. What struck me at that time was, that is exactly the demand of those who cry "Palestine shall be free, from the river to the sea", except that the name of the state would be 'Palestine' instead of 'Israel'. In such a state, the 7 million Jews would live there. No one, to my knowledge, has called for an Arab ethnostate.
