How to be an anti-Zionist without being an antisemite

Can you be anti-Zionist and not be antisemitic? This question is being asked a lot these days, particularly given the abuse and threats that Jewish students on US college campuses have been subjected to since Hamas perpetrated the massacre of 7 October 2023.

The answer is that you can definitely be anti-Zionist and not be antisemitic. There are four different approaches that can lead to that result. 

The first is Jewish anti-Zionism. There is a stream of thought among ultra-Orthodox (Haredi) Jews that the creation of Israel is heretical and that Jews should not re-establish their independence until the Messiah returns to redeem the People. Groups associated with this view include the Satmar Hasidic sect and the Neturei Karta sect. 

There is also a “secular humanist” stream among Jews who believe that Judaism should evolve beyond its national/tribal origins (which are embodied today by the State of Israel) into something more universal and ephemeral. This stream often combines aspects of Judaism with elements borrowed from Buddhism in their thinking. 

Obviously, neither the Satmar nor the “Jubus” are antisemites.

The second is Israeli anti-Zionism. This is a school of thought that rejects the definition of Israel as a Jewish State and wants to redefine Israel as a state of all its citizens – both Jewish and Arab. Most adherents to this view are Israeli Arabs, but the political party in Israel most associated with the world view – called “Hadash” – always makes a point of including Jews amongst its leaders and candidates for office. That sends a message – Hadash is not challenging the right of Jews to live in Israel. 

The third is Marxist anti-Zionism. This was best expressed in an essay I read last year in the Jacobin, a far-left online journal that rejects the current faddish “Woke” movement and wants to implement socialism…for real. The author, in discussing the conflict in the Middle East, pointed out that he was indeed “anti-Zionist,” but that he opposed the Jews’ national liberation movement because he opposed all national liberation movements – including that of the Palestinians. To genuine Marxists, the purpose of nationalism – like religion – is to divide the proletariat so that they are unable to defend their shared class interests. That might be silly, but it isn’t antisemitic.

Finally, there is Pan-Arab anti-Zionism. This no-longer-relevant version of anti-Zionism does not question the right of the Jewish people to live in the Land of Israel but views that right – like those of other national minorities – as subordinate to the overall objective of achieving the aspirations of the Arab peoples. The Jews, in this perspective, could be given a homeland – a protectorate or autonomous region – subordinate to a greater Pan-Arab entity, but not independence.

This view was rendered irrelevant by the Western betrayal of the Arab revolt against the Ottomans. Pan-Arabism simply did not pan out. The ideological (and in some cases biological) progeny of its adherents are among those in the Arab world who, sometimes enthusiastically and sometimes reluctantly, accept the existence of Israel as a practical matter.

Note that there is a common denominator that links all these perspectives. All recognize that the Jewish people’s origin is in the Land of Israel and acknowledge the present-day right of the Jews to live there. What they question or reject is the right of the Jews to rule there.

Virtue-signaling ignoramuses

Now compare these perspectives with the views articulated by the protestors running rampant on college campuses and their apologists in the media and academia. These views can be conveniently summarized by the four “special” words they use: Colonization, Occupation, Apartheid, and Genocide.

Anyone using these terms is either a genuine antisemite or a virtue-signaling ignoramus who has yet to learn that virtue signaling invariably comes at a high price in terms of actual virtue. 

The claim that Israel is a colonial state and that its citizens are white Europeans who are dispossessing marginalized people of color is, prima facie, absurd. There is unambiguous genetic evidence that the Jewish people are closely related to the Palestinian people. There is also a plethora of historical and archaeological evidence that the Jewish people’s origin is in Israel. 

Unlike any European colonial enterprise, there has been an uninterrupted Jewish presence in Israel for the entire two thousand years between the loss of independence in the bitter wars against Rome and the restoration of independence in 1948. 

And both the small Jewish community in the Land of Israel and the large Jewish communities of North Africa and the Middle East were subjected to over a thousand years of discrimination and persecution by the people who the Jews are ostensibly displacing as colonizers. 

When a persecuted and marginalized minority earns its freedom and independence, we do not call it colonization. We call it liberation.

As for “occupation,” Israel certainly occupied Gaza and the West Bank – between 1967 and 1994. That occupation, far from being illegal, was authorized by UN Security Council Resolution 242, which stipulated that Israel would withdraw from land seized in the 1967 war to recognized final borders as part of a process in which its existence had been recognized by its enemies and peace agreements had been signed and implemented. 

The Israeli occupation ended in every meaningful sense of the term in 1994 with the implementation of the Oslo Accords. Since that time, the Israeli presence in the West Bank and Gaza has been regulated by agreements between Israel and the internationally recognized leadership of the Palestinian people. 

One tortured analysis I saw early on in the current war actually referred to “Hamas-controlled occupied Gaza.” Funny not funny. Occupation requires “control.” The Hague Convention of 1907 is crystal clear regarding this. For there to be an occupation, “armed forces of a foreign state are physically present without the consent of the effective local government” and “the occupying forces must be able to impose their own authority over the territory.”

As for “Apartheid,” the term refers to a society that segregates its citizens into two or more groups that are kept apart from each other. In Israel, there is no such separation. Jews and Arabs work together, study together, and die next to each other in hospitals where it is likely that they were being treated by both Jewish and Arab physicians. Arabs have served in the military as senior officers and in the Foreign Ministry as senior diplomats. Arabs have served as Supreme Court justices. And an Arab – and overtly Islamist – party was part of Israel’s ruling coalition in 2021-2022. 

Purveyors of the “Israeli Apartheid” smear know all this but fall back on claiming that Israel keeps itself “separate” from the Palestinian population of Gaza and the West Bank, a population that neither side considers to be part of Israeli society. They are part of another society, and every society on this planet regulates who it allows to cross its borders. In the case of Israel, the main consideration is the security of Israel’s citizens, and anyone who doesn’t understand why that’s a thing may not have been paying close attention to the events of the past 12 months.

And finally, “genocide.” Among war crimes, none is considered more serious than Genocide. Genocide is an attempt to destroy an entire people through murder, rape and impregnation, the stealing of children, and the erasing of culture. There is zero evidence that Israel has been doing any of these things in Gaza, or for that matter, anywhere ever. While there have been endless claims that Israel is starving the Gazans, all actual evidence suggests the opposite. Nor has there been any evidence of the deliberate targeting of civilians. Note that the entire ICJ case against Israel was based on statements by Israeli leaders that were taken out of context (for example, saying “kill them all” with reference to Hamas’ leadership). No actual examples of Genocidal conduct could be shown. That is why the ICJ has now twice refrained from ordering Israel to discontinue its operations in Gaza.

To be sure, there are credible cases of IDF soldiers committing war crimes – primarily involving abuse of prisoners and vandalism of property that belongs to Gazan civilians. These things are serious but take place in all militaries, and Israel is a country that zealously prosecutes misconduct by its soldiers. Ironically, the United Nations – the source of a lot of the claims of “Israeli Genocide!” – has the opposite reputation. UN peacekeeping forces routinely enjoy zero accountability for the widespread murders, sexual predation, and thievery committed by their personnel.

Now, when people claim – with no evidence or when all the evidence contradicts them – that Israel is a colonial enterprise, an occupier, practices apartheid, or is engaged in genocide, they are indulging in the blood libeling of the Jewish people. 

No one would dispute that anyone claiming today that “the Jews killed Christ” “Matza is baked using the blood of Christian children,” or “the Jews will not replace us” is an antisemite. 

And no one should dispute that people casually accusing Israel of heinous crimes for which there is no evidence are indeed antisemites.