Zionism then and now is about gathering around Jerusalem (zion) the temple, or the heart of their faith, religiously and as a people. It is about overthrowing the injustice of rome, or oppressive abuse like rome. It is about identity of past and present as jews.
Jews have always identified with returning to Jerusalem, it is part of their prayers.
Zionism as a modern term is though only of as a form of nationalism, but it is about a people and it's roots and about a place of protection for jews, Israel, their homeland.
Jesus wanted to bring his people back to the truth of their religion as a nation and spiritually. Jerusalem and the temple was central to this, but Jesus also gave them a belief that they are a part of god, not apart or distant from god. They were god's children.
Zionism is about uniting the jews with where they came from. Giving them back their identity that will strengthen them.
You are lying.
Zionism is a modern ideology that believes in mass migration of Jews from around the world to Palestine to recreate a Jewish state their.
It is a result of 2,000 years of anti-Semitism and the failure of Jews to fully assimilate intotheir host cultures for their host cultures to accept them.
If it wasn't for the anti-Semitic events of the 19th and 20th century, and the peoples of Europe gave the Jews full equality and respected them, Zionism would have never existed.
Calling Jesus, Moses, David, Solomon, Judas Maccabeaus a "Zionist" is historical revisionism and pure dishonesty.
Not unlike Holocaust denial.
I will try to remember and parahprase what I posted some days ago on this same subject (I don't feel like wading through earlier posts in search of the original, to copy-and-paste)...
--------------------
The idea behind the OP is that 'Even Jesus is a Zionist'...
Implicit in that challenge are the following two points...
1. the OP can be construed literally - meaning that Jesus was one, in fact
2. the OP can be construed metaphorically - meaning that Jesus would have supported Zionism, and eligible to receive that label, as a descriptor.
...and, further implicit in the OP, is the idea that Zionism can be divided into two (2) timeframes...
1. modern-day Zionism, as a formal movement, as originated in the late 1800s.
2. earlier Zionism-like (pro-Jewish homeland) movements, stretching back into Antiquity
...and, in light of the fact that Zionism itself may be defined in two different ways...
1. support for a homeland for the Jews, on their ancestral/spiritual home soil
2. support for the modern State of Israel - to varying degrees or extent
Now...
Given that Jesus limited his ministry largely to his own Jewish people...
Given that Jesus encouraged a respect and obedience to the old Jewish laws...
Given that Jesus stated that his philosophy trumped old Jewish law (but leaning upon it as a point of departure and legitimizing agent)...
Given that the Founding Church Fathers argued amongst themselves for years about the relationship between proto-Christianity and Jewish law and customs and ritual...
Given that the Capital of the Church remained in Jerusalem for many years in the earliest decades of the life of this new Church...
Given that the Christian Church relies heavily upon the Jewish Old Testament to supplement the New Testament, to provide guidance in matters on which the New Testament is silent, and as part of the heritage of Christianity...
Given that Jesus and his disciples and immediate precedessors (such as John the Baptist) spoke out against the Roman occupation of their homeland and the puppet-king installed by the Romans - in subtle terms, and sometimes not-so-subtle terms...
It may be logically inferred that Jesus was, indeed, on the side of his own people, insofar as that loyalty did not detract from nor impair his love and consideration for all peoples...
It may be logically inferred that Jesus was, indeed, in favor of his own people continuing to have a homeland of their own, insofar as this could be accomplished without bringing harm to others...
Consequently, it may be logically inferred that Jesus was apparently a Zionist, using Zionism merely as a label for an attitude or position, in the simpler sense of the word, meaning that he supported the idea of his own people continuing to have a homeland on the soil they had controlled for the past several centuries prior to his birth.
Perhaps it would help to label Jesus as a Zionist using a small "Z" - a zionist.
Moving forward in time, given what we can infer about his attitude towards such things, from fragments of related commentary coming down to us (imperfectly) through the ages...
It seems likely and credible to speculate that - could Jesus move forward in time to our own present age - say, up to the late 1800s... that Jesus would probably have been an early supporter of the early formal Zionism Movement, as we know it in modern times...
Supporting a return of his people (both genetic, to some extent, and spiritual and philosophical, to a large extent) to their ancestral and spiritual homeland, after an absence of the better part of two millenia...
Right up to the point where disputes began over land ownership and governance, and right up to the point where harm began to befall those who were involved in such things...
At that point, it seems likely to speculate that Jesus... transported into the modern age... would have dropped his support for early Zionism and abandoned it as going against the Do-No-Harm grain of his teachings and philosophy.
In both a historical and in a modern-times speculative context, it seems appropriate to view Jesus of Nazareth as eligible to be labeled as a Zionist, as the 19th Century movement first unfolded, as a rather innocent concept and early-times plan...
It merely requires that one free one's mind of an over-reliance upon Literalism, and be able to take one's speculative nature out for a good, long metaphorical walk, to sense the likely accuracy or truth of such an observation...
All of this is entirely in keeping with the multi-facted speculative nature implicit in the OP...