The Morality and Immorality of Anti-Zionism

The term “anti-Zionism” is used frequently in contemporary discourse about Israel. However, it is almost never defined, not even in in-depth discussions and presentations and not even in relation to the equally ambiguous term “Zionism.”

In a striking example, a lengthy presentation of the diverse views of American Jews, many critical of Israel, was recently published in the New Yorker. The author mentions “anti-Zionism” sixteen times without ever stating what he (or his interviewees) means by the term. It seems to include the views of some who oppose Israeli policy; it also seems to include the views of some who oppose the existence of the State of Israel. Perhaps the closest he gets is the recognition that anti-Zionism might mean multiple things: “Some Jews have gone further [than critiquing Israeli policies], condemning Israel as an illiberal ‘ethno-state’ that oppresses Palestinians and should be abolished in its current form.” Though obviously aware of these different positions, the author says nothing about the vastly different outcomes they might lead to, treating them simply as multiple options with seemingly equivalent moral weight.

This article is just one example of a widespread ambiguity in contemporary discourse. This is stunning given the frequent use of the term anti-Zionism to refer to a range of often contrasting views with profound, even life-or-death implications. In light of this ambiguity, there is a serious need for clarity, both terminologically and morally, in usage of this term. I want to suggest a model we can use to consider two versions of anti-Zionism (while acknowledging that many peoples’ views are not so tidily categorizable). The first is “policy anti-Zionism,” referring to opposition to the policies of the State of Israel. The second is “existential anti-Zionism,” referring to opposition to the creation and existence of the State of Israel. The difference between these two terms could not be more significant, and yet there is almost never any effort made to clarify which meaning someone (supposedly) has in mind. That this clarification is necessary is surprising, for the stakes—about a country and its policies, and the lives of its citizens—are immense. That many use the term anti-Zionism without explaining their views regarding these stakes is troubling.

I want to grapple with the meanings of the term anti-Zionism because of the assumed reasonability of existential anti-Zionism apparent in some critical discussions of the founding and the policies of Israel. There is no other state whose continuing existence is widely treated as open for debate. Only Israel is subject to a disturbing dichotomy: does the state’s contested creation and / or flawed policies justify a critique of its policies or of its existence? (A rough illustration of this claim is found in the Wikipedia entry on “Right to Exist.” While it surveys seven countries—including totalitarian North Korea—the section on Israel alone takes up 70% of the entire entry. Also, a recent survey found that only 52% of 18–29-year-olds believe Israel has a right to exist.) A contrast is revealing.

Other states have emerged out of war, violence, and injustice and implement bad policies, and yet no one proposes that they should cease to exist. Though some countries at their creation or subsequently committed large-scale murderous violence, the political unit is almost universally treated as sacrosanct. For example, there were not and are not demands for the abolition of China, North Korea, or even western countries such as Britain because they emerged from military conflict, seized territory through war, and often brutally repressed their citizens and others. The post-World War II expulsion of millions of ethnic Germans from Poland and Hungary is but one of numerous such events, most little known and largely ignored. Likewise, about 800,000-900,000 Jews were expelled from Arab countries such as Egypt following the creation of Israel. In all such cases, no one speaks of anti-Polandism, anti-Hungarianism, anti-Chinaism, or anti-Egyptianism. No one proposes to turn the clock back and question the justice of their founding or continuing existence.

Policy anti-Zionism could be criticism of Israel’s political or military decisions. One could imagine the term being used to criticize Israel’s treatment of its Arab citizens, military activities in the region, or even its actions at the founding of the state. The critique may be harsh, reflecting disappointment and anger with the country. However, it presumably rests upon a concern for the future of the country and its people and a sense that, by offering some form of critique, one hopes for a change of policies for the better.

The term existential anti-Zionism should be used to refer to support for the replacement or disappearance of the State of Israel as currently constituted. It rests on one essential feature: a loss of sovereignty and of political and military control in (some part of) the land of Israel. Regardless of the means (such as military defeat or political change), the implications of this are severe and possibly deadly. The loss of sovereignty will almost certainly leave the residents of the state—especially but not exclusively the Jewish residents—in grave danger. Because of the widespread hostility toward Israelis (and Jews) in the region, it seems highly probable that Israelis (and Jews) without the ability to defend themselves would face violence from others in the region, where antipathy against them is widespread.

Admittedly, this outcome is only a possibility. However, it seems highly likely, so that the stakes could not be greater. Precedents from the history of the region—widespread conflict and brutality in many nearby states and especially persecution of religious and ethnic minorities—give little reason for optimism that Jews without the means of self-defense will be left in safety. Massacres in multiethnic states (e.g., of Christians in Iraq [2003-], Yazidis in Iraq [2014], and Baha’i and Christians in Iran [2021]) are tragically common. Some regional parties’ endorsement of the expulsion (or worse) of Jews from the land, such as Hamas and Hezbollah, is a grave threat. Whether they would revise these goals if Jews no longer had political and military power and Palestinians had sovereignty of their own is an exceedingly high risk to take.

In historical terms, one might justify existential anti-Zionism by the political and military events that led to the creation of the state and that in their wake make it illegitimate. One might highlight the often-violent acts, especially the flight and expulsion of Arab residents of the region. Others might highlight the broader political context, treating the creation of Israel as a colonial endeavor at a time of widespread decolonization. Some defenders of this version have sought support from the views of prominent Jews and Jewish organizations, such as some Reform, Orthodox, and socialist Jews, who were opposed to the creation of the state for diverse reasons. However, this is an unrealistic effort to return to the period before 1948, since most of these Jews were active while a state was only a possibility, not a reality. They opposed the creation of a state, a markedly different position from supporting the elimination of an existing state.

There is thus a pressing need for moral clarity when discussing anti-Zionism. One might genuinely debate the claims associated with policy anti-Zionism because of an assumption of (presumably) some overlapping values. Above all, these might include a shared commitment to the preservation of human life. By contrast, existential anti-Zionism is necessarily immoral. Given the probability of great harm because of the loss of sovereignty, this version of anti-Zionism is deeply troubling because (perhaps tacitly) it includes the acceptance of or at best ignores the likelihood of terrible harm. Support for the disappearance of the state risks the large-scale endangerment of Israelis no longer in control of the means of their self-defense.

Most supporters of existential anti-Zionism would presumably claim to be motivated by positive or life-affirming motives and to reject such an outcome. This is morally irrelevant. Consider, for example, the dissolution of Israel and creation of a so-called binational state with citizenship for Israelis and Palestinians. This is an idea with some support among Palestinians and western intellectuals. (Note though that only 1% of Israeli Jews agree with “the core contentions of anti-Zionist activists abroad that the country should be replaced with a Palestinian or binational state.”) One may have genuinely constructive reasons for endorsing a binational state, intending for it to remedy political injustices and to advance democracy. However, given that Jews would constitute less than half of the population, they would lose the basic features of sovereignty that are necessary for their security. The judgment that this position is not just wrong or unfeasible but is immoral is based on the likely outcome, unrelated to even a positive motivation.

This distinction between forms of anti-Zionism fits into a broader context of debates about Israel, Jews and Judaism, and antisemitism. My model allows us to avoid the often contentious and unfruitful debate about whether anti-Zionism is a form of antisemitism. This linkage can sometimes be justified but it is seldom straightforward and often contested (owing, among other things, to the subjective standards that are applied). Some people focus on the effects of hostility to Israel on Jews when it causes discomfort and fear and when such hostility crosses the line into hate speech or antisemitism. Or they point out similarities in anti-Zionist discourse to well-known historic antisemitic tropes. These efforts at linkage may have merit, though they are unavoidably subjective and are unlikely to advance discussion.

In some debates about Israel it may be appropriate to wrestle with terms such as antisemitism and anti-Judaism. However, I suggest it can be more helpful to focus on different versions of anti-Zionism and their possible outcomes and effects. Because I establish a stark distinction between policy and existential anti-Zionism, one need not consider the motives of those espousing anti-Zionist views in order to evaluate them. Instead, existential anti-Zionism, an argument for the elimination of the State of Israel in its current form, is inherently immoral because of the large-scale danger it poses to human life. It is unnecessary to determine whether it is also antisemitic or anti-Jewish. Perhaps it is, but that is irrelevant to this judgment.

A related current tension concerns the bounds of acceptable discourse. In general, we should welcome diverse voices to discussion, especially in light of the high level of interest in issues related to Israel and Palestinians. However, all groups (consciously or unconsciously) set boundaries for discourse and view them as necessary to establish what is or is not acceptable. Claims from within the category of policy anti-Zionist should be seen theoretically as within those bounds and open to discussion. Claims from within the category of existential anti-Zionism should be rejected on moral grounds. The former may be impractical or wrong-headed or foolish. The latter are unacceptable and should be outside the bounds of any communal standards.

A few brief examples can illustrate how this approach can be helpful in cases of ambiguity and confusion. For example, the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism confusingly supports both uses of the term anti-Zionism. On the one hand, the Declaration endorses “the right of Jews in the State of Israel to exist and flourish, collectively and individually, as Jews.” However, this does not preclude “criticism of Israel as a state.” This looks like an example of policy anti-Zionism. However, it also endorses a variety of political options “that accord full equality to all inhabitants ‘between the river and the sea’ [such as] a binational state, unitary democratic state, [or] federal state.” By welcoming discussion of options that lead to the elimination of Israel and the creation of another political entity, it moves from policy to existential anti-Zionism. While the authors are no doubt well-intentioned, the two versions are in no way alike.

Even greater confusion is found in the statements of the officially anti-Zionist group Jewish Voice for Peace. In their mission statement, they define “anti-Zionism” as both “a loose term referring to criticism of the current policies of the Israeli state, and / or moral, ethical, or religious criticism of the idea of a Jewish nation-state.” In this one sentence, they present two contradictory options. By questioning the very “idea” of Israel, JVP goes beyond “criticism” of Israel’s policies and presents a clear example of existential anti-Zionism. Statements opposing the creation and existence of Israel are common in their publications, sometimes alongside criticisms of Israel, without any differentiation between them. Revealingly, they defend their hostility toward the existence of Israel with a strange parallel. They say that the United States, like Israel, is also “openly criticized in public life, and [both countries’] political beliefs and policies are subject to critical debate.” While certainly true, they do not explain why only for Israel (but not for the United States) do they shift from criticizing its policies to criticizing its creation and existence. The United States, despite its many flaws, is inexplicably exempted from such a terrible outcome without explanation for the difference. (Ironically, loss of sovereignty in the United States, while hard to even imagine, seems far less immediately perilous than it would be for residents and citizens in Israel.)

Finally, alongside my moral criticism of existential anti-Zionism because of a grave danger to Israelis (and Jews), I want to affirm there are equally legitimate Palestinian concerns for life and safety as well. These deserve serious attention on both ethical and practical grounds for the sake of Palestinians but also for peace-seeking Israelis. However, my present concern is more limited because of current discourse and the need for moral clarity when assessing anti-Zionist claims. While in this case my focus is on the safety of Israelis, my hope is that all those who express views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict do so with the same commitment to the safety and flourishing of both peoples. Hopefully my reasons for arguing for greater moral clarity when critiquing Israel will apply to those who critique Palestinians out of the best of intentions.