Ziophobe Newspeak: A Glossary of Euphemisms for Erasing Israel

How Anti-Israel Rhetoric Rebrands Hatred as Humanitarianism

In today’s ideological battlefield, language is not just a tool—it’s a weapon. Nowhere is this more evident than in the rhetoric of modern anti-Zionists, or as I call them, Ziophobes. These aren’t your run-of-the-mill critics of Israeli policy; Ziophobes are ideologues whose entire worldview revolves around the delegitimization, dehumanization, and, ultimately, the cancellation of Israel as a state—and of Zionism as a movement.

Some voices have called for banning slogans like “Free Palestine” or “From the river to the sea” on the grounds that they advocate the erasure of Israel. And rightly so—these phrases are explicit. But what’s far more insidious is how the same message hides behind “respectable” language. Dig a little deeper, and you’ll find that even the most innocent-sounding words in Ziophobe jargon—freedom, dignity, self-determination, or any humanitarian-sounding tautology—often mean exactly the same thing: dismantle Israel, erase Jewish sovereignty, and frame it all as virtue.

The slogans may be banned, but the ideology remains—camouflaged in plain sight.

The Vocabulary of Virtue-Signaling

Rather than declare their intentions openly (though many do)—“We want to dismantle the Zionist entity,” a euphemism for the world’s only Jewish state—they’ve adopted a vocabulary that sounds progressive, noble, and humanitarian. Justice, liberation, equality—all familiar to Western ears, especially in academic and activist circles.

But scratch the surface, and you’ll find that these lofty words have been weaponized and redefined. The jargon may vary, the definitions may shift from one Ziophobe faction to another, but the endgame is always the same:

Israel must go.

That’s why engaging with Ziophobes in debate is treacherous territory. You might think you’re speaking the same language—but you’re not. You may find yourself nodding along to what seems like a call for fairness—only to realize too late that “justice for all” means erasing Jewish sovereignty, and “liberty” means the end of Israel.

Ask what they mean, and they may smugly reply that “justice means justice” and “all means all”—a tautology meant to shut down scrutiny. But don’t be fooled. In practice, their “all” explicitly excludes Jews as a people with the right to national self-determination.

This isn’t semantics—it’s strategy. Don’t let familiar words lull you into false agreement.

Let’s decode this Orwellian lexicon.

Ziophobe Terminology: A Translation Guide

Apartheid
➔ Israel differentiates between citizens and non-citizens. Arab citizens of Israel enjoy full rights; those in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are governed by Hamas or the “Palestinian Authority” under the Oslo Accords. Ziophobes conflate these categories to accuse Israel of systemic “racism” (see Racism).

Colonialism
➔ Zionism. The indigenous return of Jews to their ancestral land is reframed as foreign occupation.

End the occupation / apartheid / oppression
➔ End Israel. These slogans mask a call for total dismantlement.

Ethnic cleansing
➔ Jewish presence in Israel. Ironically, the ones calling for a Jew-free Palestine accuse Israel of ethnic cleansing.

Genocide
➔ Any Israeli military action. The word is stripped of meaning and flung at every airstrike or counterterror raid—no matter the target, the intent, or the facts.

Hasbara
➔ Zionist propaganda. Any explanation of Israeli policy or history that contradicts Ziophobe narratives is dismissed as part of a global conspiracy to manipulate public opinion. Ironically, Ziophobes have adopted the Hebrew word hasbara, which simply means “explanation” or “clarification”—but in their vocabulary, it has come to mean “heinous propaganda.”

Humanity
➔ Everyone except Zionists. That’s how they can claim to defend “human rights” while cheering Hamas.

Liberty and justice for all
➔ Liberty for all except Jews to self-determine. “All” means everyone who accepts the death of Zionism. Some even cynically “explain” that “Liberty” means “Liberty,” “Justice” means “Justice,” and “All” means “All”—while ignoring that this “all” explicitly excludes Jewish self-determination.

Netanyahu’s heinous regime
➔ Israel. Doesn’t matter who’s in power. Bennett, Lapid, Netanyahu—left, right, or center—Israel is still framed as a criminal “entity.”

Netanyahu’s propagandists
➔ Anyone who supports Israel. From bloggers and journalists to Holocaust survivors, all are seen as “heinous propagandists.”

Occupied territories
➔ All of Israel. Not just Judea, Samaria, and Gaza. The entire country is viewed as one big occupation.

One-state solution / Right of return / Justice for all
➔ End Jewish sovereignty. Flood Israel with millions of descendants of “1948 refugees,” erase its Jewish character, and call it justice.

Palestinians
➔ Everyone except Jews. Arab citizens of Israel, Armenians, Assyrians, Circassians, Samaritans, Druze, non-citizen Arab settlers in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza, as well as all UNRWA-registered “refugees”—all count. Jews don’t. Note: the term “Palestinian” is fluid and ever-evolving—it can mean anything, so long as it helps delegitimize Israel.

Palestinians with Israeli citizenship
➔ Arab Israelis and other non-Jewish citizens. A category used to blur lines and erase Jewish indigeneity. Notably, a “Jewish citizen” includes anyone eligible under the Law of Return—including those who aren’t halachically Jewish—but this nuance is irrelevant to Ziophobes, whose aim is to erase Jewish identity altogether.

Racism
➔ Zionism. Supporting Jewish self-determination is labeled racist. Supporting an Islamist terror group is not.

Resistance
➔ Terrorism. Stabbings, rocket attacks, lynching—all glorified as noble resistance.

Settlers / Colonizers / Occupants
➔ All Jewish Israelis. Not just in Judea and Samaria, but in Tel Aviv, Haifa, Ashdod—Ziophobes see all Jewish presence as illegitimate.

Two-state solution
➔ Temporary step toward one state. In Ziophobe rhetoric, it’s a smokescreen: support it in English, reject it in Arabic. The goal isn’t peaceful coexistence—it’s to isolate Israel, carve out territory, and eventually dismantle Jewish sovereignty altogether.

Zionist
➔ Anyone who supports Israel. Religion, ethnicity, and political views are irrelevant.

Zionist entity
➔ Israel. The name is avoided to deny its legitimacy.

The “New Historians” and the Academic Lexicon of Erasure

The ideological groundwork for much of Ziophobe rhetoric was laid by the so-called “New Historians,” notably Ilan Pappé, Benny Morris, Simha Flapan, and political thinkers like Noam Chomsky. While some of their critiques began as efforts to uncover historical nuance, their terminology has been co-opted and radicalized into ideological weapons.

Ilan Pappé’s Toolkit:

• Settler-colonialism: Zionism is framed as a settler-colonial project seeking to replace an indigenous population.
• Ethnic cleansing: The 1948 Arab exodus is labeled a deliberate and coordinated campaign of expulsion.
• Memoricide: Israel is accused of erasing “Palestinian” memory through renaming, destruction of archives, and historical denial.
• Elimination logic: Citing Patrick Wolfe, Pappé argues that Zionism seeks not just “occupation” but the demographic elimination of “Palestinians.”

Noam Chomsky’s Contributions:

• Anti-Zionism ≠ Antisemitism: Chomsky claims that opposing Israel does not equate to antisemitism, though he has condemned terrorism.
• Structural domination: He presents Israel as a US-backed outpost of imperial power, enabling global injustice.
• Decontextualized comparisons: Uses analogies to South Africa or apartheid without acknowledging Jewish indigeneity or the reality of multiple governance systems (Israel, PA, Hamas).

Academic Terms Now Abused in Activist Circles:

• Decolonization: Originally a term for ending European empires, now used to mean eliminating the Jewish state.
• Nakba: From “catastrophe” to weaponized narrative aimed at reversing 1948.
• Right of Return: Not about return but about demographic erasure of Jewish sovereignty.

When Scholarship Becomes Slogan

Academic critiques can and should exist. But Ziophobes have taken historical revisionism and turned it into moral absolution for terrorism.

Ilan Pappé may have meant to provoke debate; his followers weaponize his words to excuse rockets at nursery schools.

Chomsky may draw distinctions between Zionism and Judaism; Ziophobes drop the nuance and call all Jews Zionist occupiers.

Jews Against the Jewish State: The Paradox of the “New Historians”

What makes the influence of the “New Historians” even more jarring is the fact that they are all Jewish. Ilan Pappé, Benny Morris, Simha Flapan, Avi Shlaim, and Tom Segev are not outsiders attacking Israel from abroad; they are Israeli-born or Israeli-raised Jews whose native language, culture, and national history are intimately bound to the state they deconstruct.

So why turn against their own homeland? The motivations are varied:

• Moral Overcompensation: For some, there is a desire to prove that Jews can be “just as critical” of themselves as any outsider—an academic form of moral exhibitionism.
• Western Academic Prestige: The global academic market rewards contrarian takes on national narratives. Casting Israel as the aggressor earns accolades in leftist circles.
• Post-Zionist Disillusionment: Many of these thinkers were raised on classical Zionism but became disillusioned during or after events like the Lebanon War, the First Intifada, or the failures of Oslo.
• Universalist Idealism: A belief that nationalism itself is outdated, and that Jewish self-determination is no more legitimate than any other ethno-nationalist project—and therefore, must be dismantled for the greater good.

In essence, the “New Historians” may reject Israel not despite being Jewish, but because of their Jewish identity reinterpreted through the lens of Western progressive guilt.

Yet for all their intellectual gymnastics, the outcome of their work is clear: fuel for those who hate Israel not for what it does, but for what it is.

Profiles in “Post-Zionism”: Key Figures of the “New Historian” Movement

Benny Morris – Considered the pioneer of the group; his work used declassified Israeli archives to reassess the 1948 war. Initially critical of Zionist actions, but later became more skeptical of “Palestinian” intentions.

Ilan Pappé – One of the most radical voices. He accuses Israel of ethnic cleansing and advocates for a one-state solution. From 1984 to 2006, he was a senior lecturer at the University of Haifa—my alma mater—where Arab students make up over 40% of the student body, more than double their share of the national population. Ironically, he denounced the very state that granted him academic freedom and tenure in one of its most diverse and inclusive institutions. He later relocated to the UK.

Avi Shlaim – British-Israeli historian who argued that Israel had opportunities for peace but often chose confrontation.

Simha Flapan – Focused on the myths surrounding Israel’s founding. He passed away in 1987 but was foundational to the movement.

Tom Segev – Journalist and historian who challenged the image of Zionism as purely heroic, offering a more complex view of early Israeli policies.

Noam Chomsky – Though not an Israeli historian, Chomsky’s fierce anti-Zionist stance and immense academic influence helped normalize radical critiques of Israel in Western intellectual circles. He distinguishes between anti-Zionism and antisemitism, but regularly depicts Israel as a colonial outpost of Western imperialism.

All of these figures are Jewish by background and identity, and most were born in Israel or grew up deeply embedded in Israeli society. Ziophobes treat them like trophies: “Look—even Jewish and Israeli voices say so, so it must be true.” Their Jewishness lends their attacks added legitimacy in some circles—but within Israel and the wider Jewish world, it has also made them lightning rods for criticism.

Radical Fringe, Amplified by Credentials

In their obsessive rejection of Zionism, the “New Historians” bear a striking resemblance to fringe ultra-Orthodox sects like Neturei Karta. Both groups are Jewish, both are deeply hostile to the State of Israel, and both are eagerly paraded by anti-Zionists as proof that “even the Jews agree.” But there’s a key difference: Neturei Karta may grab headlines by hugging Holocaust deniers and marching with Hamas flags, yet their influence is limited. Their arguments are religious, archaic, and unintelligible to the secular progressive crowd they try to impress.

By contrast, the “New Historians” cloak their animus in academic respectability and speak the fluent dialect of the modern Left—colonialism, indigeneity, human rights. That’s what makes them far more dangerous. They don’t chant; they publish. They don’t just oppose Israel; they help reframe its very existence as an original sin. Their credentials lend them credibility, and their language makes them palatable to those who would otherwise recoil from outright antisemitism. In short, they’ve intellectualized the delegitimization of Israel—and given it tenure.

Neturei Karta members at an event in Boston, Massachusetts, in 2017. Licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: Wikimedia Commons.

The Palestinian Identity Manifesto: Language as Reclamation

The Palestinian Identity Manifesto is more than a rebuttal—it’s a linguistic revolution. If Ziophobes have distorted terms like “Palestinian” to erase Jewish indigeneity, the Manifesto boldly reclaims them. It asserts what history already records: that Palestine was a Jewish identity long before it was weaponized against Jews.

Where Ziophobes say “Palestinians” and exclude Jews, the Manifesto insists on Jewish belonging and excludes the Ziophobe settlers who hijacked the term. Where Ziophobes invoke “justice” to dismantle Israel, the Manifesto reclaims justice as the restoration of historical truth.

This document exposes the double standards, flips the frame, and reminds the world that Jews—Zionist or not—are also Palestinians. Not by the slogans of 1960s terror groups, but by the ancient, rooted, and undeniable connection to the land called Eretz Yisrael, also known to the world for centuries as Palestine.

Conclusion: A Moral Smokescreen

Ziophobe vocabulary isn’t just political rhetoric—it’s a moral smokescreen for an agenda of erasure. Decode their slogans, and one message repeats again and again:

End Israel.

Whether they call it “liberation,” “justice,” or “decolonization,” the outcome is always the same: no Jewish state, no Jewish sovereignty, no Jewish future in the land of Israel.

That’s not activism. That’s not justice.

That’s hate—dressed in academic robes and protest slogans.