The 'porges' are shallow meddlers who believe in non-Zionist Zionism

Zionism began as a political project and its military structure is that of the State of Israel. The self-described anti-Zionist left forgets that Marxism once supported it.

English · Original discussion in Spanish · Published

Zionism is not a whim of Netanyahu or a bomb falling on Gaza: it is the ideology that materialized the State of Israel, its military structure included. That is why a retired general like Eisenkot, who served as Chief of the General Staff, does not stop being a Zionist by opposing the prime minister.

Zionism is not a bomb falling on a Gazan. It is the ideology that materialized the State of Israel, and its military structure is the force of that ideology. Confusing Zionism with Netanyahu is a category error: the prime minister is a tenant of the State, not its architect. Whoever wins an election in Israel will not dismantle the Zionist project, because the project is the State itself.

## Eisenkot served in the army that defends that State

Gadi Eisenkot is a retired military officer and Israeli politician. A major general in the Israel Defense Forces, he was the **21st Chief of the General Staff** of the IDF between **2015 and 2019**. If serving in the Israeli army meant not being a Zionist, then Mandela was pro-white. The comparison is crude, but so is the reasoning that makes it necessary.

The conclusion that an opponent of Netanyahu must be anti-Zionist does not hold up against the facts. Eisenkot led the army of a State whose very reason for being is Zionism. Opposing a particular prime minister is not the same as opposing the ideology that founded the country. They are two different things, and confusing them leads to analyses that explain nothing.

## Marxism supported the Zionist project

There is a part of the left that declares itself anti-Zionist and takes for granted that the left always was. It is not so. Marxism supported Zionism, and the State of Israel was designed to a large extent by Marxists. Today's left has shifted its position over time, and some of its leaders admit it bluntly: we left Zionism and are now anti-Zionists. That turn is recent, not a historical essence.

The case of **Lula** in Brazil illustrates the contradiction. A left-wing leader who maintains economic and political relations with the Israeli State while his base presents him as anti-Zionist. The coherence between discourse and practice is, at best, selective.

## BlackRock operates in Israel and Brazil at the same time

**BlackRock** holds stakes in giants of the American aerospace and military industry such as **Lockheed Martin**, **RTX/Raytheon**, **Boeing**, **General Dynamics** and **Northrop Grumman**, which supply weapons and technology to the IDF. Through its global fixed-income and emerging-market funds, it manages and acquires Treasury bonds and debt issued by the government of Israel. It operates directly in Israel with local offices and its own management team.

In Brazil, BlackRock has been operating for almost three decades. It maintains cooperation agreements with states such as **São Paulo**, to attract investment in digital infrastructure and data centers, and **Paraná**, to connect regional projects with global capital. It has a strategic alliance with the Brazilian stock exchange **B3** to issue and interconnect dozens of exchange-traded funds. The world's largest asset manager has a presence in both countries, and that does not look likely to change with a change of government.

The anti-Zionist label is handed out generously to leaders who maintain economic ties with Israel. It is a problem of definition, not of nuance. The article takes no side on ideologies, but it is worth remembering that political labels do not always match economic practices.

Summary of a discussion on Burbuja.info - Foro de economía, actualidad y política., translated from Spanish and reviewed before publication. Read the full discussion (0 replies).

More summaries

All summaries in English →

-
Back