The Protocols of the Elders of… WHAT? Antisemitic Forgery vs. Anti-Zionist Erasure

HISTORY MATTERS BECAUSE FACTS MATTER

The profound contradiction embedded in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion represents one of history’s more striking ironies: the forgers who fabricated this antisemitic tract chose Zion, a Hebrew term denoting Jerusalem and the Jewish people’s ancient homeland, as the very name for their imagined global Jewish conspiracy. This linguistic choice inadvertently acknowledged what modern anti-Zionists vehemently deny: the deep, millennial connection between Jews and the Land of Israel.

———

The term Zion derives from the Hebrew ‘Tzion’ originally referring to a fortress captured by King David around 1000 BCE on a specific hill in Jerusalem. The term quickly expanded through biblical usage to encompass Jerusalem itself, the Temple Mount, and eventually became a metonym for the entire Land of Israel and the Jewish people. The name appears 152 times in the Hebrew Bible, 46 times in Isaiah alone and 38 times in Psalms, consistently representing the spiritual and physical center of Jewish identity.

For over three millennia, Zion has been woven into the fabric of Jewish religious life. Jewish prayers have consistently oriented toward Jerusalem and Mount Zion. The liturgy developed during the Babylonian Exile established a tradition of yearning to “return to Zion” that persists in Jewish prayer to this day. Even Jews forced into diaspora maintained this spiritual and cultural connection, praying facing Jerusalem and ending Passover seders with “Next year in Jerusalem”.

When Russian forger Piotr Rachkovsky and his collaborators fabricated the Protocols of the Elders of Zion around 1902-1903, they plagiarized heavily from Maurice Joly’s 1864 political satire and other sources, creating a supposed transcript of meetings by learned elders of Zion. Publisher Pavel Krushevan first serialized it in 1903, falsely claiming it documented a “World Union of Freemasons and Elders of Zion”. The forgers deliberately invoked the First Zionist Congress held in Basel in 1897, attempting to link the emerging modern Zionist movement, which sought Jewish self-determination in their ancestral homeland, with an imagined global conspiracy.

The choice of “Zion” was strategic propaganda. By naming their fictional cabal the “Elders of Zion,” the forgers tapped into existing antisemitic tropes while exploiting the genuine Jewish connection to Zion. The term carried weight precisely because it was authentically Jewish, representing centuries of Jewish prayers, literature, and longing for Jerusalem. In fact, the Protocols claimed that Jews sought worldwide control, supposedly deriving their ambitions from the biblical idea of being the Chosen People, and that this goal was directly linked to Zion, the Land of Israel.

Contemporary anti-Zionism operates on a fundamentally opposite premise. It denies any legitimate historical, cultural, or indigenous connection between Jews and the Land of Israel. It rejects the legitimacy of Jewish self-determination in their ancestral homeland, often framing Zionism itself as “settler colonialism,” “racism,” or “white supremacy”. Many anti-Zionist activists deny that Jews constitute a nation deserving self-determination rights, instead viewing them merely as a religious group.

This denial extends to rejecting the historical connection documented in countless sources: the continuous Jewish presence in the land, the centrality of Jerusalem in Jewish worship, and the genetic evidence linking Jewish communities worldwide to the Middle East. Anti-Zionism’s central operation involves denying Jewish indigeneity and historical belonging, replacing it with an accusation of foreign colonization.

Both forms of antisemitism share a common goal, i.e., delegitimizing Jewish collective existence, but operate on contradictory premises. The Protocols antisemites feared Jews because of their ancient connection to Zion and their efforts to return there. Modern anti-Zionists condemn Jews while denying that connection exists at all. One antisemitism says: “Jews are dangerous because Zion is theirs and they’re reclaiming it.” The other says: “Jews are dangerous because Zion is not theirs and they’re stealing it.”

The term Zion itself exposes this contradiction. For the forgers of the Protocols, Zion was the perfect name precisely because it evoked authentic Jewish historical and religious identity, the very identity modern anti-Zionism insists is fabricated or irrelevant.

The cruel irony remains. Those who fabricated the ‘Protocols of the Elders of Zion’ understood better than modern anti-Zionists that Zion, Jerusalem, the Land of Israel, has been central to Jewish identity for millennia. Their antisemitism, vile as it was, at least acknowledged what contemporary anti-Zionism denies: that the connection between the Jewish people and the land called Zion is ancient, documented, and real.

One could almost imagine the anti-semites behind the Protocols of the Elders of Zion angrily telling their modern anti-zionist counterparts that if the Jews had no authentic tie to Zion their entire forgery would be just nonsense and they might as well have called it the ‘Protocols of the Elders of Antarctica’!”