Zionism: It’s Time to Stop Playing Defense

On November 8, demonstrators took to the streets of Philadelphia to boycott Jewish-owned restaurants. Their message was unmistakable: “No business for Zionists!” and “These Zionist Establishments must go! Not in our city!”[NBC10 Philadelphia]

The demonstration took place on the eve of the 88th anniversary of Kristallnacht, when Nazi mobs attacked Jewish businesses, synagogues, and homes throughout Germany and Austria. The organizers denied deliberately choosing that date. Whatever their intentions, the historical echoes were chilling.[Jewish Federation of Greater Philadelphia]

But something encouraging happened. Counterprotesters rallied around the targeted restaurants. Customers lined up to buy food, turning the restaurant counters into a form of protest themselves. The Jewish community demonstrated that it would not stand silently by.[Times of Israel report]

That was good news. But it raises a much larger question.

Why are we always playing defense?

We Are Letting Others Define Zionism

American Jewish organizations have devoted enormous energy and resources to combating antisemitism. The Anti-Defamation League, American Jewish Committee, Jewish Federations, StandWithUs, the Blue Square Alliance Against Hate, and others conduct important educational, advocacy, and security programs. Their efforts deserve recognition. The Blue Square Alliance, for example, has invested in national advertising, research, and partnerships designed to reach Americans beyond the Jewish community. [ADL–Blue Square partnership]

These are substantial initiatives, not merely reactive responses. The question is whether their collective scale, coordination, and measurable impact match the challenge.

The problem may not be a shortage of good programs. It may be that we have never organized them around a common national objective, with agreed-upon measures of success.

Anti-Israel activists have succeeded in making “Zionist” a term of abuse in many public settings. Yet Zionism is the movement through which the Jewish people reclaimed national self-determination in their ancestral homeland after centuries without sovereignty. It helped turn the ancient aspiration to return to Zion into a modern state, revived Hebrew as an everyday language, and created a homeland and refuge for Jews threatened by persecution. Its achievement is not only Jewish independence, but the flourishing of a society whose contributions to science, medicine, technology, and culture extend far beyond Israel. None of this places Israel beyond criticism. Yet a movement that achieved these things is routinely portrayed as racism, colonialism, and even genocide.

How did we allow others to define and defile one of the most important movements in modern Jewish history?

For thousands of years, Jews maintained their connection to the land of Israel through prayer, language, tradition, and historical memory. Modern Zionism transformed that enduring connection into a practical movement for national independence. The creation of Israel in 1948 was its defining political achievement.

Yet today, young Americans can graduate from prestigious universities believing that Zionism is simply a colonial enterprise.

We should ask ourselves why.

Certainly, Israel’s policies and actions can and should be debated. Criticism of an Israeli government is not inherently antisemitic. But denying Jews alone the right to national self-determination, or treating American Jewish businesses as legitimate targets because their owners are identified as Zionists, is something quite different.

In Philadelphia, demonstrators crossed that line. They were not merely criticizing the Israeli government. They were demanding that businesses identified with Zionism disappear from their city.

We Cannot Counter Our Way to Victory

The response in Philadelphia was heartening. It demonstrated solidarity and undoubtedly reassured the targeted business owners.

But how many Americans who were indifferent, misinformed, or hostile to Zionism changed their minds because of those crowded restaurants?

That is the question we should be asking.

We cannot counter our way to victory. We must take the initiative and lead the conversation, rather than allow our opponents to set its terms.

In an earlier essay, “We Are Not Defined by Those Who Hate Us,” I argued that Jewish identity must not become primarily a response to antisemitism. The same principle should guide how we communicate with the wider American public. We should not allow those who attack Zionism to determine how Zionism is understood.

Our opponents understand the power of short, emotionally compelling messages. Their signs, chants, and social media campaigns are designed to reach audiences far beyond the people physically attending their demonstrations.

Where are our equally clear and forceful messages?

HAMAS CALLS FOR GENOCIDE.

ZIONISM MEANS JEWISH HOMELAND.

JEWS BELONG HERE.

…

These are not substitutes for historical education or serious debate. They are examples of something our public advocacy needs more of: clarity, confidence, and the ability to communicate a moral argument in words ordinary Americans will remember.

We should not surrender the language of human rights, freedom, and national self-determination to those who seek to exclude Jews from their protection.

Nor should we allow the worst accusations against Israel to go unanswered while its extraordinary accomplishments remain largely invisible.

Israel has built a technologically advanced democracy, world-class universities, remarkable medical institutions, and an innovation economy whose contributions reach far beyond its borders. Its scientists, engineers, physicians, and entrepreneurs have improved lives around the world. Israeli emergency teams have responded to disasters thousands of miles from home.

How often does the average American hear that story?

What My Years at Bell Labs Taught Me

I spent much of my professional career in engineering, research, and technological innovation, including many years at Bell Labs. I learned that exceptionally talented people, substantial financial resources, and enormous effort do not necessarily produce success.

Organizations can become prisoners of their own assumptions. They can continue doing what they have always done, sometimes with increasing intensity, without asking whether their approach is still effective.

During executive management training at Bell Labs, I read Clayton Christensen’s The Innovator’s Dilemma. His central insight has stayed with me. Successful organizations can become so committed to the practices that made them successful that they fail to recognize when the world has changed.[The Innovator’s Dilemma]

I wonder whether the same risk of institutional inertia deserves examination within American Jewish life. This is a question about our collective strategy, not an indictment of the dedicated professionals leading these organizations.

Our major organizations were built to address important challenges, and many are already adapting through media campaigns, partnerships, education, and research. But the communications environment has changed dramatically. Social media, short-form video, campus activism, and emotionally charged political messaging now shape public attitudes at extraordinary speed.

The question is no longer whether our institutions are adapting. Many clearly are. The question is whether they are adapting fast enough, at sufficient scale, and with measurable results.

Are we measuring whether our programs actually change opinions? Are we reaching young Americans before their attitudes harden? How do we counter the largely anti-Zionist messages children are receiving in K-12 and college? Are we testing different messages with different audiences? Are we willing to abandon programs that produce little measurable benefit?

I do not know the answers to all these questions, and some organizations may already have compelling evidence of success. Sharing that evidence, identifying gaps, and building on what works into a coherent program would be a powerful starting point.

Effort is not the same as effectiveness. And institutional longevity is not evidence that a strategy is working.

We Need a Different Model

I propose that the leaders of America’s major Jewish organizations establish a coordinated national initiative devoted to changing how Americans understand Zionism, Israel, and antisemitism.

This should build on effective existing work rather than duplicate it or create another competing bureaucracy. It should add shared objectives, independent evaluation, and the freedom to test ideas that individual organizations might not be able to pursue alone.

We need a professionally managed, independently evaluated communications initiative that brings together outstanding talent from advertising, technology, behavioral research, education, and digital media.

Its objective should be measurable changes in public understanding and attitudes, especially among younger Americans. We could track whether more young people understand Zionism as Jewish self-determination, reject the targeting of Jewish businesses, and distinguish criticism of Israeli policies from hostility toward Jews. We should also measure whether attitudes change over time, not merely how many people see our messages.

This would require serious funding, perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars over several years, and the freedom to experiment with different approaches.

We might be best served by a well-funded Jewish innovation fund to support independent, startup-like initiatives addressing the challenges facing American Jewry. A national communications campaign could be one of its first major investments.

The funds would finance competing approaches, establish measurable objectives, commission independent evaluations, and allocate additional resources to programs that demonstrate success.

Some initiatives would fail. That is inevitable in innovation. The important thing is to recognize failure early, learn from it, and move resources toward what works.

We should not assume that the best ideas will necessarily come from established organizations. Some may emerge from young entrepreneurs, communications professionals, educators, or technological innovators who have never worked within the Jewish institutional world. Contests for compelling slogans and partnerships with credible social media influencers could help us reach audiences that traditional Jewish organizations rarely reach. Such partnerships should be transparent, and their effectiveness independently measured.

The objective should be to strengthen effective programs, challenge assumptions when needed, and achieve demonstrable results.

And the results we seek must go beyond persuading people who already agree with us.

Our priority should be Americans who know little about Israel, have absorbed misleading narratives, or remain uncertain about Zionism. We need to offer them a compelling account of Jewish history and national self-determination, then measure whether their understanding and attitudes change.

That is a far more ambitious undertaking than organizing counterprotests. It is also far more important.

A Challenge to American Jewish Leadership

I would like to see the leaders of our major American Jewish organizations promptly convene to explore such an initiative, bringing together existing expertise and new voices.

They already know that antisemitism is a serious problem. The purpose should be to decide what more can be accomplished together.

Rather than another declaration of solidarity, the meeting should produce a concrete plan built around three questions. Implementation will undoubtedly raise others.

What are we trying to change? How will we measure success? And what are we prepared to do differently if our present approach is not working?

The answers should lead to a concrete proposal with defined measurable objectives, substantial funding, independent leadership, and public accountability.

This will require cooperation among organizations with different missions and strengths. It will also require major Jewish philanthropists to support experimentation alongside proven programs, with transparent evidence of results.

None of this will be easy.

But consider the alternative.

We can continue responding to each new demonstration, each campus outrage, and each attack on Jewish institutions. We can organize counterprotests, publish condemnations, and reassure ourselves that our community remains united.

Or we can decide that defending ourselves is not enough. We must take the offensive.

The Philadelphia counterprotest showed what Jewish solidarity can accomplish in a single afternoon.

Imagine what we might accomplish with that same determination, backed by professional expertise, sustained funding, and a strategy measured in years rather than news cycles.

We have the talent. We have the resources. We have the institutions.

We cannot counter our way to victory. It is time to stop playing defense and start shaping the conversation.

Author’s Note: In preparing this essay, I used ChatGPT as an intelligent assistant in developing and editing it, including help in identifying and checking the historical and Jewish sources, as well as generating the graphic. The ideas and conclusions are my own.