Vox Meditantis

Accusations aimed at critics blur distinctions, muddy debate, and threaten honest discussion about rights, identity, and statehood—justice demands clarity.

The conflation of antisemitism with anti-Zionism represents one of the most pernicious threats to honest political discourse in our time. This deliberate blurring of fundamentally different concepts serves neither the fight against genuine antisemitism nor the cause of justice for Palestinians. Instead, it weaponises historical Jewish suffering to shield a modern nation-state from legitimate criticism, whilst simultaneously making Jewish communities less safe by trivialising real antisemitism. The evidence is clear: these are distinct phenomena that must be understood separately if we are to maintain any hope of rational debate about one of the world’s most intractable conflicts.

Understanding Antisemitism: Hatred of Jews as Jews

Antisemitism, properly understood, is “a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews”. The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition makes clear that antisemitic manifestations are “directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities”. This definition emerged from centuries of persecution that culminated in the Holocaust, where Jews were targeted not for their political beliefs but for their perceived racial identity.

The historical roots of antisemitism run deep. As scholar Helen Fein defines it, antisemitism is “a persisting latent structure of hostile beliefs towards Jews as a collective manifested in individuals as attitudes, and in culture as myth, ideology, folklore and imagery”. This encompasses everything from medieval blood libels to modern conspiracy theories about Jewish control of global finance or media. Crucially, antisemitism targets Jews because they are Jews, not because of any particular political position they might hold.

Modern antisemitism manifests in various forms: physical attacks on synagogues, vandalism of Jewish cemeteries, harassment of visibly Jewish individuals, and the propagation of age-old conspiracy theories about Jewish power and influence. When protesters in Sydney chant variations of “gas the Jews” or reference the historical massacre at Khaybar, they are engaging in unambiguous antisemitism. These acts target Jews as a people, regardless of their individual views on Israel or any other political matter.

Defining Anti-Zionism: Opposition to a Political Project

Anti-Zionism, by contrast, is opposition to Zionism as a political ideology and movement. Zionism emerged in the late 19th century as “a political movement to reestablish a Jewish state in Israel, the ancestral homeland of the Jewish People”. The movement’s founder, Theodor Herzl, envisioned “Der Judenstaat” – a state for Jews that would serve European imperial interests whilst providing a solution to the “Jewish question”.

From its inception, Zionism was a contested idea within Jewish communities themselves. The timeline of anti-Zionism reveals that opposition began almost immediately after the movement’s founding. In 1912, Agudat Israel formed representing “the first organized Orthodox opposition to Zionism and the foundation of a Jewish state”. By 1917, the League of British Jews was established in opposition to Zionist aims. Jewish congressman Julius Kahn presented an anti-Zionist petition to President Wilson in 1919, signed by over 300 prominent American Jews, declaring Zionist aims “utterly opposed to the principles of democracy”.

These early Jewish critics of Zionism were not motivated by antisemitism but by genuine concerns about the political implications of Jewish nationalism. Many feared it would undermine Jewish integration in their home countries or create conflicts with existing populations in Palestine. Rabbi Isaac Breuer declared in 1918 that “Zionism is the most terrible enemy that has ever arisen to the Jewish Nation” – hardly the words of someone motivated by anti-Jewish hatred.

Anti-Zionism today encompasses various critiques: opposition to the establishment of ethnic nation-states on principle, concern for Palestinian rights, objection to settlement policies, or support for alternative political arrangements like a single binational state. The American Jewish Committee acknowledges that calling for a Palestinian nation-state whilst opposing a Jewish one could be “hypocritical at best, and potentially antisemitic”, but this admission reveals the political nature of the judgement rather than providing clear analytical criteria.

The Conflation Campaign: Politics Masquerading as Principle

The deliberate conflation of these distinct concepts serves clear political purposes. As one academic analysis notes, “any critic of Israeli policies is now burdened with the same charge” of antisemitism. This conflation transforms legitimate political criticism into a “collective guilt-trip for non-Jews about the long sad history of conspiracy theories about the Jewish people”.

The mechanics of this conflation are visible in institutional responses. UCLA’s Task Force to Combat Antisemitism and Anti-Israeli Bias exemplifies the problem by lumping together “antisemitism” and “anti-Israeli bias” in its very title. The task force admitted it “intentionally did not provide definitions of antisemitism or bias against Israelis” to allow “lived experiences and perceptions” to guide analysis. This methodological abdication ensures that any criticism of Israeli policies can be classified as antisemitism based purely on subjective interpretation.

The US House of Representatives made this conflation explicit in December 2023, passing a resolution declaring that “anti-Zionism is antisemitism” by a margin of 311-14. This represents a dangerous precedent that effectively criminalises political opposition to a nation-state’s founding ideology. No other country enjoys such protection from criticism of its foundational principles.

The Empirical Evidence Against Conflation

Data from American surveys reveals the weakness of claims that anti-Zionism necessarily stems from antisemitism. Research shows that “attitudes about Jews are a powerful predictor of Republicans’ opinions about Israel” but this relationship is far weaker among Democrats. Among liberal Democrats, opposition to Israeli policies appears driven primarily by “ideological principles, such as support for equality and minority rights” rather than anti-Jewish sentiment.

This partisan divide demolishes claims that opposition to Israeli policies necessarily derives from antisemitism. Progressive Jews themselves frequently condemn Israeli actions “on ideological and humanitarian grounds”, demonstrating that anti-Zionist positions can emerge from principled political analysis rather than ethnic hatred.

The conflation becomes particularly absurd when examining figures like Donald Trump, who combines strong support for Israel with clear hostility toward American Jews. As one analysis notes, Trump “admires countries that ensure ethnic, racial, or religious dominance” and “likes Israel because its political system upholds Jewish supremacy” whilst resenting American Jews for opposing “the white Christian supremacy he’s trying to fortify”. This combination would be impossible if Zionism and Jewish identity were truly equivalent.

The Dangers of False Equivalence

The conflation of antisemitism and anti-Zionism creates multiple dangers. First, it trivialises genuine antisemitism by applying the label to political criticism rather than ethnic hatred. When every criticism of Israeli settlement policy is labelled antisemitic, the term loses its power to identify and combat real anti-Jewish bigotry.

Second, it silences legitimate political discourse. As critics note, “accusations of anti-Semitism are sometimes made with the goal of ‘silencing’ criticism of Israel”. This creates a chilling effect where people avoid discussing Israeli policies for fear of being branded antisemitic, regardless of their actual attitudes toward Jews.

Third, it may actually increase antisemitism by creating resentment among those falsely accused. Brian Klug argues that excessive claims of antisemitism “may backfire and contribute to antisemitism” by fostering “a McCarthyite tendency to see antisemites under every bed”. Tony Judt suggests that Israel’s “insistent identification” of criticism with antisemitism is now “the leading source of anti-Jewish sentiment in the world”.

Conclusion: Clarity as a Moral Imperative

The distinction between antisemitism and anti-Zionism is not merely academic – it is essential for maintaining honest political discourse and protecting Jewish communities from genuine threats. Antisemitism targets Jews because they are Jews and must be condemned unequivocally. Anti-Zionism critiques a political ideology and the state built upon it, which in any democratic society must remain open to criticism and debate.

The IHRA definition itself acknowledges that “criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic”. This principle must be upheld rigorously, not abandoned whenever criticism becomes uncomfortable for Israel’s supporters.

Those who genuinely care about combating antisemitism should resist the temptation to weaponise Jewish suffering for political ends. The conflation of antisemitism with anti-Zionism serves neither Jewish safety nor Palestinian justice. Instead, it corrupts our political discourse and makes rational discussion of Middle Eastern politics virtually impossible.

Democracy requires the free exchange of ideas, including criticism of nation-states and their founding ideologies. No country, however sympathetic its historical circumstances, should be exempt from this fundamental principle. The sooner we abandon the dangerous conflation of antisemitism and anti-Zionism, the sooner we can begin having honest conversations about justice, equality, and peace in the Middle East.

Bob Lynn / 24-May-2025

Photo credit: Cole Keister