Why Does Only Israel Face Calls for Dismantlement?

There is something deeply telling about how Israel is talked about in global discourse. Not just (justifiably) criticized, but uniquely targeted—singled out in ways that no other state is, no matter how brutal their actions, no matter how widespread their human rights violations. It’s not strange to notice this discrepancy. It’s perceptive. But understanding why it exists requires an honest reckoning with layers of history, power, identity, ideology—and, at times, hypocrisy.

Israel is more than a state. For many Jews, it is the culmination of centuries of longing, reconstitution after exile, and safety after unspeakable tragedy. For others—particularly in parts of the Global South—it’s viewed as a Western colonial project, dropped into a historically Arab and Muslim land and propped up by U.S. military and diplomatic support. Because of this dual symbolism, Israel is rarely judged solely on its actions. It is judged on what people believe it represents. And when a state is turned into a symbol, every act becomes a proxy war over identity, memory, and morality.

Israel’s post-Holocaust creation was not just a Jewish project—it was a European one, built in part on the ashes of guilt and the West’s failures to protect its Jews. That history matters. It explains why Israel, more than any other nation, is viewed as an extension of Western power—and why it is often judged not on its own terms, but as a stand-in for the West’s perceived global sins. Unlike China, Russia, or Iran, Israel claims to be a democracy, to uphold human rights, and to be “a light unto the nations.” When Israel falls short—and it does—critics don’t simply view it as flawed. They view it as fraudulent. And that gap between aspiration and action generates an outrage that is sometimes sincere, and sometimes performative.

Add to that the fact that the Palestinian cause has become an emblem of global resistance movements—from anti-imperialism to racial justice to anti-capitalism. Palestinians are stateless, marginalized, often voiceless in mainstream power structures. Their struggle, quite rightly, evokes deep sympathy. But what often follows is an unfortunate flattening of the narrative: Israel becomes the permanent oppressor; the Palestinians the permanent oppressed. That framing, while emotionally powerful, obscures the complex truths of the region and helps fuel the most dangerous demand of all: that Israel itself be dismantled.

Let’s be clear. Calling for the dismantling of a state is not the same as calling for its reform. People may say “dismantle Israel” and mean “end the occupation,” “create one secular democratic state,” or “rethink ethno-nationalism.” But others mean something darker—removing Jewish sovereignty altogether, or imagining a Middle East where the world’s only Jewish state disappears. That second category is not rare. And it is not liberationist. It is eliminationist.

This brings us to the often muddy terrain of anti-Zionism. In theory, anti-Zionism is a principled opposition to the idea of an ethno-religious state. It can be rooted in universalist values, theological beliefs, or historical grievances. But in practice, anti-Zionism often becomes something more sinister. It blurs into antisemitism when it denies Jews the same right to self-determination that is afforded to others. It becomes discriminatory when it essentializes all Jews as Zionists, or portrays Zionists as inherently evil. And it becomes dangerous when it offers no viable future for Jewish safety, sovereignty, or continuity in a region where Jewish minorities were historically targeted long before Israel existed.

Relatively recently I wrote an article on the rise of both Islamophobia and Antisemitism in Europe, and there was a comment saying that ‘moderate Zionism is still Zionism’ – firstly it showed lack of basic reading comprehension as the article was strictly about trends in Europe, not about the atrocious war on Gaza or the Oct 7^th tragedy. Secondly, as it always is with futile attempts of virtue signalling, there was no proposal in the comment of what to actually do – no intellectual ingenuity to, for instance, suggest a non-Zionist type of political format for Israel and/or Jews of the world, or a call for a one state solution, nor was there moral clarity and bravery to openly say – ‘F**k Zionism, Israel should be dismantled’, which was the actual message of the comment, illustrating most vividly how colonial Europeans still want to draw the borders for the others, as their opinion and ‘activism’ is the right and only route, and their process of whitewashing their own colonial crimes begins and ends with supporting a token ‘brown people’, in this case Palestinians.

To claim that Israel is a “cancer upon the world” while also claiming to be anti-Zionist and anti-fascist is not only logically incoherent—it is morally grotesque. Dehumanizing language is a hallmark of fascism. Whether it’s calling Jews “parasites,” Tutsis “cockroaches,” or Bosniaks “viruses,” the history of such metaphors is soaked in blood. When people say Israel is a cancer, they are not criticizing a government. They are demonizing a people. They are reviving the logic of extermination, not emancipation.

Even worse, they claim the mantle of anti-fascism while using the rhetoric of fascists. They claim to care about justice, while singling out one state—one people—for eradication. Where is the demand to dismantle China for its cultural (and literal) genocide against Uyghurs? Or Russia for its systematic erasure of Chechens and Ukrainians? Or Sudan, Syria, or Iran? Why is Israel, alone among nations, labeled uniquely illegitimate?

The answer lies in a mix of ideological bias, selective moral outrage, and a deep discomfort with Jewish power. For centuries, Jews were stateless, powerless, and pitied. Now that they have a state—flawed, embattled, often harsh—many prefer the Jew as victim, not sovereign. Zionism challenges that narrative. And for some, that challenge is intolerable.

None of this is to deny any of the suffering of Palestinians. Their pain is real, their dispossession ongoing, and their aspirations valid. But justice for Palestinians should not require denying the legitimacy of Israel’s existence. One people’s dignity should not come at the cost of another’s survival. It is possible—and necessary—to critique Israel, defend Palestinian rights, and still affirm the right of Jews to self-determination in their ancestral land.

To do otherwise is not activism. It is erasure. And it is time we call it what it is.