Blaming Jewish legacy organizations for tarnishing Zionism is “Tommy Boy” logic

In the 1995 comedy, “Tommy Boy,” there is a scene when David Spade’s character goes into a gas station to ask for directions while Chris Farley’s character stays with the car to pump gas. While attempting to pump gas, Farley drives this beautiful, classic car into a post, and the car door gets bent all the way backwards, barely hanging onto its hinges. After shoving the door into place so it looks like nothing has happened, Farley sits innocently in the passenger seat so when David Spade returns to the car and opens the door, it falls to the ground. Farley looks at Spade with surprise and says, “What did you do?”

This is the scene that came to mind when I read the Feb. 9 JTA article, “The JFNA survey proves it: ‘Zionism’ today only impedes the conversations that Jews, Israelis and Palestinians need.” The article states: “Jewish legacy organizations have contributed to such a poisoning of the term Zionist that 80% of those who identify as anti-Zionist believe that Zionism means “supporting whatever actions Israel takes.””

Really? The Zionist organizations have poisoned the term Zionism, not the anti-Zionist organizations? That didn’t sound right to me, so I dug in deeper to the JFNA data. What I found was most enlightening.

The data shows that 100% of anti-Zionists believe that Israel is an apartheid state and also 100% believe Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinians. In case you’re worried if that’s a widespread opinion, the small print declared that anti-Zionist Jews also only made up 7% of the 1877 Jewish respondents. Finally, the JFNA survey does not actually assign causality to the misunderstanding of the word Zionism among anti-Zionists; the author of the article makes that assumption on her own.

For starters, I want to make it clear that I agree there are deeply important conversations that Jews, Israelis, and Palestinians need to have. We must engage with each other on the toughest issues. We can’t sweep the difficult questions and the inconvenient problems under the rug. We must be open to having debates that include criticism of Israel – and criticism of ourselves too. I have heard too many Gen Z’ers say when they were young, they were fed a one-sided narrative about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict so when they arrived in college and heard the other side, they felt misled. We can’t let that happen anymore–we absolutely must have tough conversations.

However, I take issue with two points made in the article. First, the accusation that the word Zionism “impedes” those conversations is inaccurate. Here at the Z3 Project, we’ve used the word Zionism for over a decade and have had great success in achieving productive conversations across ideological, political and gender gaps that many thought unbridgeable. Since 2014, we have described the moment we are in as Zionism 3.0, the third era of Zionism, and we dig deep into what Zionism really is. We use that terminology intentionally, proactively, not as a reaction to this moment, but because we believe Jewish sovereignty is core to our identity.

We start by saying we are proudly Zionist and we welcome anyone who wants to have a conversation about what that means – including those unwilling to use the term Zionism. We bring in those on the left and right, secular and observant, Israeli and diaspora Jew, and we strive for deep, meaningful, brave conversations. In our eleven years of running successful conferences and workshops all over the world, having reached tens of thousands of people, we have found the word Zionism does not ‘impede’ the conversation but provokes it. Indeed, by not shying away from the language, we are able to explain what Zionism really is and is not.

The second issue I have is blaming legacy Jewish organizations for sullying the term Zionism. This is the “Tommy Boy” blame-game, but with deeper consequences. 

When Jews line up at rallies to protest an Israeli leader’s speech in DC or a pro-Israel speaker at a synagogue or a conference on Israeli-American relations, younger Jews who have an affinity for Israel but may be upset with Israel’s current policies see anti-Zionists standing shoulder to shoulder with them. What is their take-away from this? Is it further clarity about Zionism or more confusing signals? The people inside the building engaging with the Israel-affiliated speakers are not muddying the term Zionism; it’s those protesting outside who are adding confusion to what Zionism really is.

Yes, I can see how young Jews outside in the protests may assume that inside, the legacy institutions are unwilling to criticize Israeli policies, which could lead them to conclude that these organizations “support whatever actions Israel takes,” as the survey suggests. But that’s naive. Of course legacy Jewish organizations criticize Israel, but they do it as mensches. When they criticize Israel, they aim to make headway, not headlines. So how they engage is just as important as what they say.

There has always been criticism of Israel, even among the most stalwart legacy Zionist organizations. The public doesn’t always hear about it because these groups know how to convey their disappointment and disagreement with respect, empathy, and rachmanus. Just as you wouldn’t stand in the middle of the town square and lambaste your spouse for the things you disagree with them about, these legacy organizations discuss their issues with Israel behind closed doors.

I know this for a fact, as I worked with one of these groups for a decade and a half and saw it with my own eyes. I’ll share just one example.

In 2000, Israel was in negotiations with China to sell them Phalcon airborne early-warning planes. The US was not in favor of this because we were worried that China could use these warplanes to endanger US forces when it came to Taiwan. The American Jewish community wasn’t in favor of shifting the military balance out of America’s favor, so we were opposed to Israel’s deal. But instead of slamming Israel at rallies or writing scathing op-eds in the paper or calling to condition Israel’s aid or lobbying openly on the Hill to sanction Israel, Jewish legacy organizations brought the parties together to work out their differences quietly, like a marriage counselor. In the end, Israel scrapped the deal with China for the good of their relationship with the US (which ultimately harmed Israel’s relationship with China, by the way, and some say drove China right into the arms of Iran).

The point is, American Jewish legacy organizations do disagree with Israel, but they do it as partners, working through differences in private. Sometimes our community gets the results we want, and sometimes we don’t – which is what partnership and compromise is all about. But these organizations don’t slam our partners in public; they don’t add fuel to the antisemitic fire; and they don’t confuse the term Zionism. 

Yes it’s true; sadly, the term Zionism is being misunderstood today. But, let’s not blame legacy Jewish organizations for this misunderstanding. (We can blame them for many things, but not this.) Instead, perhaps the well-meaning Jewish organizations that are standing shoulder-to-shoulder with real anti-Zionists should take a long, hard look in the mirror and ask if their strategy of public criticism of Israel is working, or if it is contributing to the confusion over more than just terminology. 

In the end, we shouldn’t back away from using the term Zionism. As I argued back in 2024, we should double down and help people understand what it is and is not. We should encourage deeper discussion about the importance, vitality, and complexities of Zionism. We should see that proudly calling ourselves and our organizations “Zionist” doesn’t impede the conversation, but plants a stake in the ground for brave conversations. 

At the end of the day, if we don’t engage boldly right now, then we may wake up in a generation and find that it’s more than just the term Zionism that is misunderstood, but the entire relationship between Israel and diaspora Jewry. And then we’ll all be looking in the mirror and asking ourselves, “What did you do?”