It seems you are questioning only the "...considering Zionism a self-destructive political ideology" final part of the final sentence, a necessarily concise sum

It seems you are questioning only the "...considering Zionism a self-destructive political ideology" final part of the final sentence, a necessarily concise summary of a whole person's lifetime views which is obviously skipping nuance. Well, hey, I'm the first to admit I never met the guy. I have also read that wikipedia page, which is probably not impartial or complete. My limited understanding is that he didn't want an Israeli state - "I should much rather see reasonable agreement with the Arabs on the basis of living together in peace than the creation of a Jewish state". Later, he initially supported Israel (as did many fleeing Europe, including my own family), but never Israel-for-the-jews-to-the-exclusion-of-others. Later he was disgusted at the political leadership of this bent he saw emerging to dominate the political reality in the fledgling nation, which is what my GP comment referred to. He would without doubt be critical today, though it seems he wisely tried to stay out of politics where feasible. Probably I should have said "militant exclusionary Zionism" or some other phrase, but it seems everything is a loaded phrase these days in discussions touching on Israel. Edit reply to child: I can see clearly that quote must be taken out of context quite often. Perhaps you should imagine if you had lived somewhere for generations and then a bunch of foreigners show up from Europe and start altering the status quo, how exactly you the residents might feel about it. It seems peaceful protest and strikes had been carried out in living memory but the results were violence. So you can see what sort of tinderbox that would be. I don't think deploying historic quotes out of context in an attempt to allocate blame and transfer that to a modern context is in any way shape or form constructive, valid, useful or intellectually honest.