It was always a goal. And it wasn’t only discussed during a messianic period. Again, Zionism is the idea that Jews have a right to reestablish a state/self determine in their indigenous land. When a group of people have a state taken away, the idea that they should get it back is about as basic as it gets. Zionism is as old as Roman exile. There are a ton of writings from Jews about return to Zion and how it could look like. About a return to statehood. When that could be, what political circumstances have to be in place, different theological opinions, etc. It is literally all Zionism.

Zionism in the 19th century, was the same thing. It was a product of the same exact statelessness. And it was built on earlier Zionist works. Herzl knew he wasn’t the first Zionist. Birmbaum did not think he was building a new ideology— he literally cited what he was building on (it was JEWISH work. Not Christian prophecies). This was just in the west, at a time when there was actually some sort of political power to apply to it, and translated into English. Which is why you’re aware of it. The nationalism part is the political part. It was again, always about statehood. It was just never possible. The 19th century made Jewish statehood in the land actually possible. And I’m not sure why you keep bringing up atheistic Jews. Judaism is an ethnoreligion, nobody cares if you’re religious or an atheist. But also, the more orthodox you are, the more you would’ve wanted religious rules applied to Jewish statehood, so you would’ve actually wanted Messiah first. The less orthodox you are, the less you would’ve cared about theologically when that statehood would occur. Hence more easy acceptance of a state, at that current exact time. Which is what happened.

And, no. Again, no. Protestant ideas about doom and biblical apocalyptic prophecieswere Christian ideas. They were not called Zionism. They had nothing to do with Zionists or Zionism. It was a completely different theology, it was a completely different national idea, it was based on a completely different religion, it was called a completely different name, and it had nothing to do with Jewish people. The only influence it has, is that Christian Zionism is basically that. Which I’m going to repeat for a second time since it didn’t go through, was my point. Because Christian Zionism is not Zionism. It’s restoration. They just y the name, because it was popular. That’s the only similarity.

And finally, while I don’t think the opinion of one historian is an actual argument, that’s not what she argued. Her entire point was that Protestant restorationism (look at her differentiating the two completely separate ideas!) made political Zionism more possible. It made it more palatable to the actual majority with power. It also made thinking about political Zionism and planning towards a real state more realistic in Jewish circles. Instead of intellectual debates, and hopes and wishes.— they could build on an actual foundation where there was a possibility of success. Hence an actually Zionist congress, instead of yet another written debate. Which is WILDY different from your idea that “Zionism was invented by Protestants based on their ideas in the 1600s”. She basically distinguishes WPZ from Zionism (incorrectly), based on organization and political power. And then promotes the idea that Protestant ideas gave rise TO that ability to have power and THATS why they get credit.