Deconstructing anti-Zionism
Where does legitimate criticism end and bigotry begin?
How to properly characterize anti-Zionism has been a controversial topic since the inception of the movement itself. Ardent anti-Zionists are adamant about how one must surely be able to criticize a state without being labeled a bigot. In that regard, they are undoubtedly correct. Nevertheless, this prospect requires closer examination. To adequately approach this quandary, intellectual integrity demands that we first steelman the anti-Zionist position.
Drawing on the Popperian philosophy of science—which advises seeking to disprove rather than prove one's theories—let us apply similar rigor to the examination of anti-Zionism. While complete objectivity may not be possible due to inherent subjectivities, efforts will be made to analyze the topic with minimal bias. Having set the stage, it would be natural to speculate about the direction of this essay. If you’re someone who instinctively sympathizes with the Palestinians you might feel inclined to stop reading. I nevertheless ask you to give me the benefit of the doubt. If you do, I suspect my conclusion might surprise you.
Casting aside preconceived notions, let us entertain the claim that anti-Zionism is distinct from antisemitism and endeavor to build a solid foundation for that position. To have any chance to determine this issue we must be clear about the definitions of the presupposed subjects associated with the concept. Otherwise, our efforts here may be counterproductive. We might end up discussing definitions of those associated subjects instead of the topic at hand.
Since anti-Zionism is inherently a movement characterized by its rejection of Zionism, we’re compelled first to establish the definition of Zionism to properly define what it means to be in opposition to it.
If you disagree with the definition of Zionism that I’ll propose, the subsequent definition of anti-Zionism will inevitably also be invalidated. That is of course your prerogative. If you do, however, even if only for the purpose of this intellectual journey, treat my definition as axiomatic, you might find yourself compelled to embrace the subsequent arguments as well. I will endeavor to construct a solid foundation of logic and rationality that is beyond any reasonable skepticism.
Fortunately, for clarity's sake, the definitions and concepts to be discussed are straightforward. I use the quite established definition of Zionism as a movement that supports the national aspirations of the Jewish people in their historic homeland. As such, since this aspiration is already realized, in the sense that a Jewish national state now exists in parts of that historic homeland, there are no presupposed activities associated with the movement. Zionism has already triumphed. Being a Zionist today is therefore akin to being a suffragette. The movement is obsolete in the sense that what it’s attempting to achieve has already been accomplished. Now is the time to celebrate. Further action is superfluous. In other words, you can call yourself a Zionist without implying that you engage in any particular “Zionist” activity.
With a solid definition of “Zionism” established we may now address its reactionary twin “anti-Zionism”, which is as simple as a movement that opposes the aspirations inherent to the Zionist movement. In other words, you oppose the existence of a Jewish homeland in their historic homeland, in any size or form. With this definition, we aptly maneuver around the strawman argument that “Zionists claim all critique of Israel is tantamount to antisemitism”. If you define anti-Zionism as a “critique of Israel” then you run into this issue. We also bypass any legitimate concern regarding Israel’s size. It is obviously not inherently antisemitic to discuss the size of the Jewish homeland, but not its mere existence.
With the definition settled, we may further examine its legitimacy from a moral and political perspective. It might be easier to legitimize anti-Zionism before Zionism’s realization in 1948. Since we’re living in current times, however, I will strictly address the movement’s current legitimacy as a force in today’s politics.
Before we do, however, one might legitimately argue that this definition is not what people refer to when using the label. Anti-Zionists they say, support a two-state solution and are only against Israel’s “oppression” of Palestinians, “occupation” and “apartheid”. That’s a valid point, but I’ve yet to see any proper anti-Zionist that actually supports a two-state solution that doesn’t encompass the so-called “right of return”. As Einat Wilf rightly points out in her book, the Palestinians have been consistent with this demand and their behavior throughout the conflict has been congruent with this demand to a fault. Any two-state solution that includes this “right of return” which would see millions of Palestinians around the world immigrate to a truncated Jewish state will obviously render the Jews a minority in their own state resulting in two Palestinian states. The Palestinians are clear about how the “right of return” is not something they plan to implement in their novel Palestinian state. They expect Israel to enact it. This is not me straw-manning the anti-Zionist rejection of the two-state solution. This is how anti-Zionists themselves explain Arafat’s rejection of the offer of a Palestinian state at Camp David.
Given the evidence presented, one may reasonably dismiss the claim that anti-Zionism equates with support for a two-state solution. We are compelled to concede that inherent to anti-Zionism is the rejection of any Jewish self-determination in the area known as historic Palestine.
Implicit with this dismissal is the exclusion from the label of “anti-Zionist” of any individual who genuinely endorses a two-state solution. In other words, advocating a reduced Jewish state without surreptitiously endorsing a Jewish-minority outcome through demanding mass Palestinian immigration, effectively renders you not anti-Zionist.
At this point of our academic inquiry we have finally reached a place where the examination of the characterization of anti-Zionism and its alleged synthesis with antisemitism is made possible. We are now capable of identifying the deciding factor that this question will ultimately boil down to. Now the question is properly formulated as “Is the rejection of any Jewish self-determination in the area known as historic Palestine antisemitic?”. Now we are getting somewhere.
Some might feel inclined to invoke the alleged imperialist, colonialist, and even supremacist nature of Zionism as a prerequisite to aptly answering that question. Entertaining that notion, however, would be tantamount to legitimizing that red herring argument. We could therefore proceed without doing so. One might also interject that we have bypassed that invocation with our current definition of Zionism which doesn’t have any inherent imperialist, colonialist, or supremacist components. In other words, any theoretical Zionism that includes such components is not the kind of Zionism we’re currently discussing. Our definition excludes any such components by definition. Those trained in the arts of mental gymnastics will here interject that “since the de facto outcome of the implementation of Zionism ideology is imperialist, colonialist and supremacist, your definition of Zionism is moot”. This is another red herring we’ll ignore. The demand that we first vindicate Zionism as a purely benign movement completely without externalities, is not only a red herring but a straw man argument as well. No political movement has ever been completely benign and without externalities and national movements tend to have the most severe externalities.
If you’re familiar with the Jewish diaspora and the Jewish sojourn as a minority amongst nations, you’re also aware of the immense sporadic oppression associated with that circumstance. Sure, there were times of relative peace and prosperity but if there’s one thing history has taught the Jews, it is to never trust anyone with their safety. Since the year 722 BCE and the Assyrian conquest of the first iteration of a Jewish national home in Palestine, Jews were compelled to live as minorities, never having any significant say in their fate (the earliest historical reference to the term Palestine is roughly 400 years later when the ancient Greek historian Herodotus wrote of a "district of Syria, called Palestine").
Since we’ve established that anti-Zionism rejects any Jewish self-determination in the area known as historic Palestine, and since the realization of this ambition would be tantamount to reducing Jews to a minority amongst nations, this historical context is essential to determine whether or not anti-Zionism is antisemitic.
One might here interject that whilst anti-Zionism rejects Jewish self-determination in Palestine, it has no issue with such a construct elsewhere. Sure, that is nice and all but as long as such a construct doesn’t exist elsewhere, we’ll go ahead and consider this a red herring as well.
Given this analysis, it logically follows that the realization of anti-Zionist goals would effectively return Jews to a minority status among nations. Given the historical fact of how that circumstance manifests, we are compelled to concede that the anti-Zionist ambition, at least the inevitable outcome of it, is antisemitic. The Jews would become a minority amongst nations again and whether or not that would lead to oppression is not a question of “if” but “when”.
Anti-Zionists will of course claim that the historic discrimination of Jews as a minority amongst nations cannot be invoked as definitive proof that it is inherently antisemitic to advocate for a reversal to such circumstances again. Surely, it’s an empirical fact that contemporary Jews are living as minorities amongst many nations without this obligatory oppression that is here treated as axiomatic. To that, I would say firstly that after approximately two millennia of sporadic oppression that culminated in a third of world Jewry being eliminated, the past eighty years of sporadic equality is the anomaly that shouldn’t be treated as a constant. There are still today fewer Jews alive on earth than there were in 1939. Secondly, after the global rise of latent antisemitism that emanated from October 7th, I can’t see anyone making this argument in good faith. It’s simply not an empirical truth that Jews are safe as a minority among nations. Lastly, weakening Jews from a position of power that self-determination inherently entails, is objectively a negative outcome relative to their position today. It’s therefore not a matter of opinion that the outcome for Jews would be adverse, it’s an empirical fact.
Defining something as antisemitic merely because of the outcome of it is, is the utilitarian approach. As consequentialists, they will say that if the outcome of an action is discriminatory, even if the intent isn’t, this sufficiently defines the action itself as discriminatory. We can therefore conclude that from a utilitarian perspective, a moral framework that evaluates an action based on its outcomes, anti-Zionist activity is by definition antisemitism.
This conclusion would bring us to the end of the essay., but Kantian deontologists would interject, saying that it is the intentions of an action that determines the moral virtue of an action, not its outcome. It would be sloppy not to give the devil its due and address that view as well. To that end, let’s examine the intention of anti-Zionists.
This is where I’ll disappoint my readers by concluding that with a deontological approach to ethics, we cannot conclusively say that anti-Zionism by definition is antisemitism, because we cannot conclusively determine what every anti-Zionist’s intention with their anti-Zionist activism is. With a deontological worldview, we are compelled to concede that anti-Zionism is not antisemitism by definition.
Ardent Zionists might say that there are no benevolent intentions to infer from the anti-Zionist movement. It’s all about the destruction of Israel. To that, I would say, since there is, at least in theory, we’re compelled to give anti-Zionists the benefit of the doubt. At least if we want to keep any academic legitimacy to this inquiry. Intention is inherently undeterminable, at least in any objective scientific manner. What we can do is ask them directly and get their subjective view of their own intentions.
Many anti-Zionists may assert that their intentions are benevolent and that their only endeavor is to rectify past and current injustices. They bear no ill will against Jews, they only worry about Palestinian human rights. They also either naively and sincerely support a one-state solution that would grant equal rights to its Jewish population, or they deceitfully suggest this "solution" as a pretext to advocate for a "right of return,". For anyone familiar with how the Middle East treats its Jews, the more likely scenario is that it would lead to a Holocaust of all "Zionists" in Israel or, in the best case, a total ethnic cleansing of all Jews. To Jews, October 7th served as a preview of what the Palestinians would do to all of Israel if they had the chance.
If we treat their subjective interpretation of their own intentions as axiomatic, then we cannot say that their anti-Zionism is antisemitic. The outcome may be adverse for Jews, but from a strictly deontological perspective that’s irrelevant. As long as the intention isn’t to hurt Jews, the action cannot be defined as inherently antisemitic in and of itself. This is however a strict semantic and theoretical assertion. It’s an ultimate sacrifice and concession to the rigorous requirements of our avowed adherence to logic and rationality.
In practice, however, we may disregard theoretical manifestations of anti-Zionism and observe how they manifests in the real world today. We may also assert the maxim that “the road to hell is paved with good intentions”. Even Stalin can be made to have had good intentions for his people in the long run. Combining Kantian ethics with the Machiavellian concept of “the end justifies the means” is a recipe for destruction.
In an applied context, the prevalent form of anti-Zionism is often closely associated with antisemitic sentiments. The Venn diagram that visualizes the overlap of practical anti-Zionism with antisemitism would show an almost total overlap. StandWithUs made an apt graphic visualizing this:
From a utilitarian perspective, one could argue that anti-Zionism should not receive societal endorsement or be deemed politically acceptable. The realization of anti-Zionist objectives would objectively have unfavorable consequences for Jewish communities. It is reasonable to hypothesize that, in the absence of antisemitism, no ethical individual would deduce that dismantling the singular Jewish state would benefit the Jewish people worldwide.
Anyone who genuinely wants to fight antisemitism must therefore understand its inherent transformative prowess, and it’s ability to adapt to the current Overton window. Additionally, Christian antisemitism is not equivalent to Muslim antisemitism. Contemporary antisemitism is not necessarily how historic antisemitism manifested. If we therefore use past manifestations of antisemitism to characterize and identify contemporary antisemitism, we might be susceptible to a tremendous blind spot.
When the horrific details of the most sophisticated industrial extermination machine that was the Holocaust were exposed, it naturally became a cultural taboo to exhibit any antisemitic sentiment. A person who has integrated bigotry and prejudice does unfortunately not become less of a bigot just because he’s met with disgust when that bigotry manifests. What does happen however, is that they learn to express that bigotry through less conspicuous behavior. That is how traditional antisemitic notions of bloodthirsty kleptocratic Jews have morphed into bloodthirsty kleptocratic Zionists. This allows contemporary antisemites to express the most vile antisemitism as long as they make sure to use “Zionist” as an euphemism for Jews.
Lastly, anyone serious about combatting contemporary antisemitism must first understand that antisemitism isn’t an existential threat to Jews as long as it remains politically incorrect. That’s why it is paramount to identify and combat politically correct antisemitism. As long as anti-Zionism remains politically correct, an existential threat against Jews still remains.