Zionism and Palestine: Identity and Dispossession

Eight months ago, I was denied entry to a Brussels restaurant because of a Star of David pendant. The owner, while blocking the door, claimed my presence would disturb the “brown people” there, not because I was Jewish or perhaps Israeli (I am not), but because I was “a Zionist.” This incident reflects a troubling trend: “Zionist” has become a stand-in for “Jew,” fuelling old antisemitic tropes under a new guise. The distinction between Jews and Zionists is blurred in public discourse, much as it was in Hamas’s original 1987 charter, which used the terms interchangeably. This conflation is not new; it is a revival of a longstanding misunderstanding and misrepresentation of Zionism, often weaponized by those with little knowledge or outright animosity.

The Dangerous Conflation of Zionism and Jewish Identity

At its core, Zionism is the name of the Jewish people’s movement for self-determination—a longing to return to their ancestral homeland, much like the Kurdish or Palestinian legitimate quests for nationhood. Both Zionism and Kurdism emerged from persecution and seek to reclaim ancestral lands. Zionism succeeded in establishing Israel in 1948; Kurds, despite their resilience, still lack a state. Both movements draw on deep diasporic ties and faced resistance from regional powers.

Throughout history, Jews have been marginalized for being “too non-white” for Europe or, paradoxically, “too white” to belong in the Levant. Genetic studies confirm Jewish roots in the region. Historian David Abulafia notes that Jews and Palestinians are genetic cousins, both descended from ancient Levantine populations. After the Bar Kokhba revolt against Rome in 132–135 CE, the Romans renamed Judea as Syria Palaestina to erase Jewish ties. Palestinians sometimes cite Philistine ancestry, though genetic research shows Philistines were of Greek origin.

Archaeological evidence—such as a 2,700-year-old Hebrew-inscribed seal from Jerusalem—underscores the ancient Jewish connection. Hebrew, uniquely among Canaanite languages, survives today. Yet, the Levant has never been the exclusive home of one people; it is a palimpsest of civilizations—Canaanites, Israelites, Greeks, Romans, Arabs, and more—each leaving their mark.

Shared Histories, Entwined Claims

Modern Palestinians are primarily descended from ancient Levantine populations, including Canaanites and Israelites, later Arabized and Islamized after the 7th-century Muslim conquests. Many Palestinian families maintain oral traditions of Jewish or Samaritan ancestry, and genetic studies reveal close kinship between Jews and Palestinians. Essentially, what matters is that both peoples have deep, intertwined roots in the land.

However, interesting as they are, such arguments risk slipping into exclusionary “blood-and-soil” demagogy, because ultimately – what is indigenous? The region’s history is one of migration, conquest, and cultural blending, not a simple tale of colonizers and natives Similarly, invoking the Holocaust to justify Israeli actions today is deeply problematic; the memory of Jewish suffering should not excuse the suffering of Palestinians. As Isaiah Berlin suggested, nations are often bound by shared myths of origin, not just blood or history.

Some voices argue that the Jewish return to the region is a form of “decolonization,” but this ignores the status of Palestinians, whose presence is continuous and deeply rooted. Both Jews and Palestinians—along with Druze, Samaritans, and others—are native to the land in different ways. Therefore, the struggle over the Levant is not a binary of colonizer versus colonized but a tragic collision of two peoples who ‘belong’, each with legitimate claims and deep connections.

Zionism, defined as the movement for a Jewish homeland, has evolved. Like many other national movements in history, it was a mix between noble and complicated origins often hijacked by right-wing or extremist actors. Today, some equate Zionism with the far-right politics of Israeli ministers like Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, who advocate for full settlement expansion and reject Palestinian statehood. However, most Israelis, according to polls, oppose their government’s current direction and yearn for peace, even if the path towards it is unclear.

Gaza’s Devastation and the Moral Reckoning

Since October 2023, Gaza has suffered unprecedented devastation following Hamas’s attacks and Israel’s military response – experts cite genocide and ethnic cleansing. Over 53,000 Palestinians have died, including thousands of children; nearly two million have been displaced. Infrastructure is shattered, and humanitarian aid is blocked, leading to man-made famine. International organizations have accused Israel of crimes against humanity, and even its Western allies have condemned the scale of destruction. The language of some Israeli officials about making Gaza uninhabitable has intensified global concern.

Every national movement has its fascist extremists. Just as there are far-right Zionists, there are Palestinians who call for Israel’s full eradication, including the ‘purging of Jews’. These views are abominations of their respective causes, but the core movements for Jewish and Palestinian self-determination remain valid and important. It is crucial to recognize that Zionism should never be a license for human rights abuses against Palestinians – now, then or in the future —whether in Gaza, the West Bank, or during the Nakba and Naksa. The suffering of Palestinians cannot be justified by Jewish historical trauma. The displacement and dispossession of Palestinians during Israel’s creation are historical facts, and the pain persists today.

Israel’s right to defend itself against threats like Hamas is legitimate, but this does not justify collective punishment, starvation, settlement expansion, or apartheid policies. Such actions are crimes that must be prosecuted, but they are not inherent to Zionism and/or Judaism itself. Zionism should not be used to erase Palestinian narratives or identity.

Many scholars and activists, Jews among them, describe Zionism, even in its liberal forms, as relying on structures of displacement and unequal rights. The drive for a Jewish state, while rooted in legitimate fears and aspirations, also meant another people lost their homeland. However, Zionism is not monolithic. There are secular, socialist, religious, and nationalist streams. Some have always advocated coexistence and equality; others, particularly today, are more expansionists. Recognizing the diversity within Zionism is crucial. The creation of Israel came at a tremendous cost for Palestinians, and this trauma cannot be dismissed as the work of “radicals” alone.

Furthermore, Palestinian resistance is not reducible to terrorism or Hamas. There is a long history of nonviolent protest, civil society activism, and intellectual critique, often at great personal risk. To frame all Palestinian resistance as illegitimate is to erase the humanity and agency of millions. Many Palestinians also critique their own leadership and the occupation.

Embracing Nuance in a Polarized Debate

Western discourse often lacks context and humility, reducing complex realities to slogans. As Gazan analyst Ahmed Fouad Alkhatib notes, Zionism means different things to different people: for some, it is a slur; for others, a belief in Jewish self-determination. Alkhatib distinguishes between its many expressions—secular, socialist, agricultural, religious, even militant—and reflects on the diverse Jewish perspectives he has encountered. He asks: why did Jewish self-determination come at Palestinian expense, and to what extent was this shaped by choices on both sides? His nuanced approach contrasts with Western absolutism, which often lacks historical and on-the-ground understanding.

Debates about Zionism are often marred by ignorance and wrongly addressed moral posturing. Calls to dismantle Israel (and set it up in Germany for example) or send Jews “home” – where would that home be – ignore the reality that Jews often have nowhere else to go. Such rhetoric dehumanizes Jews and Israelis and denies their rights.

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 war on Gaza or the Oct 7th tragedy. Secondly, as it always is with futile attempts at 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 say, ‘F**k Zionism, Israel should be fully dismantled,’ which was the actual message of the comment. This illustrates most vividly how colonial Europeans, or ‘useful idiots’, as Alkhatib calls them, still want to draw the borders for others, as if 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.

For many Jews, Zionism has meant liberation and safety after centuries of persecution. For many Palestinians, it has meant dispossession and injustice. Multiple truths exist side by side. Criticizing the harms of Zionism’s implementation is not antisemitic by default, just as supporting Jewish self-determination does not require endorsing every Israeli policy.

Two Peoples, One Land

Amos Oz, the Israeli novelist and peace advocate, wrote, “I don’t think a decent person has to choose between being pro-Israel and pro-Palestine. I think you must be pro-Peace.” He saw Israel as a dream realized but flawed, advocating for a two-state solution. Palestinian lawyer Hiba Husseini notes, “It is a fact that we are both here, Israel is here, and Palestine is here, and neither is going anywhere.” The poet Mahmoud Darwish, despite criticism, embodied the complexity of accepting both peoples while actively fighting for the rights of Palestinians.

Ultimately, the Israeli Palestinian story is not a simple one of good versus evil. It is a story of two peoples with legitimate ties to the land, both traumatized and longing for self-determination. Recognizing this complexity is essential for real understanding. To be a true friend to both Israelis and Palestinians is to demand justice, equality, and peace for everyone. Anything less is to repeat the mistakes of the past and betray the hopes of both peoples.