Ziophobia and Antisemitism: Time to Draw the Line

Relax, No One Called You an Antisemite — Just a Ziophobe

It’s become almost predictable: raise a word in defense of Israel, and someone will accuse you of playing “the antisemitism card.” It’s an old game, played by those who don’t want to argue on substance. But let’s be clear: not all anti-Zionism is antisemitism, and pretending they are identical only helps the people who are attacking Israel while insisting they’re not bigots.

That’s why it’s time to name the thing more precisely. If their rhetoric targets Israel specifically — not Jews as a people, a religion, or an ethnicity — then let’s call it what it is: Ziophobia. And the people pushing it? Ziophobes.

(For the record, a more technically precise but clunkier alternative would be Zionophobia and Zionophobes — but those terms never quite stuck. Ziophobia is shorter, punchier, and carries the same meaning.)

Unlike the broad and sometimes ambiguous label “antisemite,” Ziophobe has the advantage of clarity. It describes people — Jewish or not — who are ideologically hostile to the existence, legitimacy, or self-defense of the Jewish state. That includes Jews like Ilan Pappé or Noam Chomsky, who openly campaign against Israel and provide rhetorical cover that non-Jewish Ziophobes happily adopt. It also includes fringe ultra-Orthodox sects like Neturei Karta — who are not antisemites themselves, but whose rhetoric and alliances are deeply Ziophobic.

In both cases, we’re talking about ideologically motivated actors who reject Israel’s legitimacy while distancing themselves from classic antisemitic stereotypes. Their opposition isn’t rooted in traditional Jew-hatred — it’s a more targeted hostility toward the Jewish state.

These so-called Jewish “New Historians” — and their ideological allies — didn’t just oppose Israeli policy. They helped engineer the rhetorical pivot that separates “Zionists” from “Jews,” enabling modern anti-Israel activists to recycle old antisemitic tropes while denying they’re antisemites. They crafted a language that lets others say, “I don’t hate Jews, I just think their country shouldn’t exist.”

And here’s where it gets even more cynical: it’s often Ziophobes themselves who bring up antisemitism — not to denounce it, but to pre-emptively accuse Zionists of crying wolf. A perfect example is the widely circulated apple/banana meme, which shows a picture of an apple labeled “banana” with the caption: “If you see an apple, you’re antisemitic.” The implication is clear: accusing someone of antisemitism is always dishonest — even when the attack targets Jewish nationhood, culture, and survival.

This is gaslighting at its finest.

So instead of playing into that trap, it’s time we changed the language. When someone obsessively vilifies Israel, distorts its history, and excuses or denies Jewish self-determination — even while claiming to respect Jews — we shouldn’t rush to call them antisemites. We should call them what they are: Ziophobes.

Ziophobia doesn’t replace antisemitism — the two often overlap, and sometimes share the same metaphysical roots. But Ziophobia is the sharper lens when the hostility is fixated on Israel. And crucially, Ziophobe is a label they haven’t built a defense against yet. No ready-made slogans. No rehearsed denials. No hollow outrage.

It’s time we stopped letting them choose the battleground.

If their issue is with Israel — not Jews, as they claim — then let’s be honest: they’re not necessarily antisemitic. They’re just Ziophobes. And now we have the word for it.