This needed to be said. We cannot accept any distortion of truth and reality because it always starts with dismissing or ignoring what seems like little things and before we know it our lives are turned upside down.
What you are doing Joshua is not only enough, but vitally important. Using the correct language and naming our current mutation of Jew-hate precisely as antizionism is foundational. Your voice is clearly exposing and socially outing the eliminatory rhetoric of antizionists. Antizionists are calling for violence and murder of Jews while framing their genocidal ideology as a moral fight for human rights. You, Adam Louis-Klein, Naya Lekht & Andrew Pessin are exposing these deadly libels for what they are - exactly the same tropes that have been used by bigots to kill Jews for 3,200 years. Antizionism is a hate movement.
As I see it, Antizionism is even more TABOO than antisemitism. Whereas antisemitism can be used to describe anything from relatively benign stereotyping all the way to overt hateful bigotry, antizionism is inherently genocidal, even if it's not always intentional.
We must not let these bigots play this linguistic shell game. Let's call out antizionism and Jew-hatred for what they are - violations of our universal moral TABOOS against overt hateful bigotry (as it would be towards any group). If we do not ostracize these bigots out of polite society, as we did to marginalize and defeat the KKK here in the US, their hate will normalize and further spiral into violence and anarchy. That is how we can and must #MakeTaboosTabooAgain.
Is the hate antizionist hate? Well if so, your hate isn’t as bad as that other form of Jew hate…. You know, antisemitism. That’s what I hear… Call me paranoid. I don’t particularly care if someone throws a brick through my window, calls for my business to be boycotted, doxxes me and threatens my child or hunts me on Bondi Beach because they identify as antisemitic or antizionist. It’s because I’m a Jew and because they hate Jews
Hete my little ( Dutch inspired) drop on the ocean. Thanks for pointing the direction
Anti-Zionism is not a political opinion. It is a hate movement. More violent. More dangerous.
Violence and intimidation continue. People call them “incidents”. They talk about “allowing it to rub it antisemitism”. Meanwhile, that movement is organizing, even underground.
There are limits. Violence is never allowed. Stay away from our Jewish fellow citizens. Stay away from the National Monument on Dam Square. Stay away from what we cherish and celebrate together.
Call it what it is. Anti-Zionism denies Israel’s right to exist and takes away Jewish self-determination. It gives a free pass for violence. Everything becomes black and white: criticism or nuance = “Zionist” = target. Our freedom of speech, of existence, of being who we are, is under attack.
The logic is perverse: Jews worldwide are guilty for one small country. “Jews” is deliberately replaced with “Zionists”. Old Jew-hatred in a new jacket.
Look at Dam Square: a place of mourning defaced and abused. Commemorations and celebrations are hijacked for protests about Gaza. Jewish mourning is taken away, participants are intimidated. Vandalism and insults become normal.
This undermines empathy and breaks trust. Right where that is most damaging: at national commemorations and festivities. Places to find each other and heal division.
It’s a big danger: making us vulnerable to manipulation. They feel powerless and shut down. They lose the courage to resist. Meanwhile, radicalization and violence increase.
This is no coincidence. It’s a pattern:
Jews get labeled “Zionist”.
Anyone who adds nuance gets the same label.
Collective guilt follows.
Intimidation and violence become “political expression”.
Criticism of policy is allowed. Anti-Zionism demands that Israel has no right to exist. That makes it dangerous. It normalizes hate. Right in places that should be safe.
In short: anti-Zionism is not derailed criticism. It is unacceptable. Make anti-Zionism punishable and equate it with antisemitism.
What needs to happen?
Is origin a criterion for value again? Intervene at the NOS. Our public broadcaster must stop presenting activism as news. No more blindly repeating “genocide” or “apartheid”. State facts. Name sources. Name the hate.
Off the streets. All slogans and signs calling for the abolition of a country or people must go. Out of public space.
Ban the symbols. No flags, clothing or banners from groups that say: another country or people must go. If you deny the right to exist, you don’t belong on the street.
No religion as cover. Hiding your call for genocide behind a holy book? Not allowed. Public safety comes first. The law comes before religious hatred.
Stop lying in the media. Don’t call a demo “pro-Palestinian” if it calls for Israel to be gone. That means supporting Hamas. And Hamas is genocidal, misogynist, homophobic and totalitarian. That’s not “pro” anything decent.
So: make anti-Zionism punishable and equate it with antisemitism.
I applaud your articulacy and delineation of the various in all this. In a less articulate way, what I'm coming up against continually in one form or other is the attestation (well, in fact it's becoming a demand now) that "I have no problem at all with Jews as long as they condemn the genocidal Zionist state". That's antisemitism, anti-Zionism and anti-Israelism all wrapped up in one inseparable bundle. How do we even begin to respond? And why should we? If they don't see (or are unwilling to admit) the prejudices behind the formulation of their demand then we are getting nowhere, except to understand further the depths of what we are dealing with.
Excellent and logical article. In 2024 I picked a book from my Uni library, a some 500 page about the history of Jew-persecution in Portugal in the 16th century. The book was written in the 19th century I think, and is based on real contemporary historical documents and chronicles archived in libraries. I was flabbergasted to have realised that the logic of today’s antizionism seemed to be exactly the same as the logic of the 16th century anti Judaism. Yes, there are some quantitative differences, of course, four centuries have passed, we drive cars and fly planes. But no qualitative difference. Thank you Joshua for articulating so vividly and convincingly.
I would also add. You cannot either allow or agree with the whole antizionist Western movement that Israel governs badly. Because, my antizionist friends told me what they think, and here it is, paraphrasing: “when Netanyahu is gone, everything will settle down.” I wish that was true, but I don’t think so. Because, what my antizionist friends want, is to keep overthrowing Israel’s government until a new government is elected and admits that Israel has stolen Arab/Palestinian land. That’s the bottom line. Plus, how is Israel’s government worse than any other country’s government? And why, in this existential war for Israel, should the government be continually criticised by outsiders? Leave this to the insiders – Israelis and Jews, but not the fanatic antizionist mob. You can criticise your own ones.
The problem also is that anti-Israeli or antizionist crowds are not completely unanimous. Some of them don’t even know whether they are antizionists or not, they just criticise Israel. More sophisticated layers within this crowd excepted, there are two major kinds:
1) First kind. I know personally and have talked with them, they are left-wing Australians, non-Jews, and quite reasonable nice people, educated etc., They say that the problem is Netanyahu/Israel’s current government. OK, some of us might agree.
2) Second kind are those fanatic mobs who are pushing the narrative that Jews came from Europe and colonised and oppressed poor Arab Muslims (and Arab Christians) of Palestine.
Let’s eliminate the second kind for now, and leave those more reasonable and nice critics of Israel. The problem with the first kind is, that, when you dig in deeper, they will merge with the second kind, ultimately. Because, for those first “nice” kind of antizionists, any Israeli government, which does whatever IDF is doing in Gaza and Lebanon and Iran, which is, trying to eliminate terror groups, which, BTW, is not possible without civilian collateral damage, will be genocidal and unjustified for them. They don’t mention true genocides committed by Muslims (in our case), it goes against their adopted narrative and detracts from the evil of Israel. They call IDF thugs, my musician friends on FB, not dobbing them, they say it publicly. So, unless Israel and its IDF “thugs” stop fighting Hamas and other terrorists, in order to avoid the civilian deaths of the oppressed "Palestinians,” no Israeli government will satisfy those nice left of the first kind. And that’s where the nicer first kind coalesces with those aggressive antizionists for whom the Israel should have never been established in the first place.
“There is no version of Israel that satisfied the antizionist” – exactly, that’s why, the critique of Israel’s government should be left for Israeli citizens, or amongst the Jews themselves, and the international antizionist mob better start criticising their own governments and their own people and ideologies and behaviours. There will never be any government in Israel, that will satisfy either the first or the second kind. Unless, of course, Israel stops fighting the terrorists who represent the “oppressed” people of Palestine whom Israel colonised. And not all Jews are targeted as Zionists BTW, Sarah Schwartz is not.
This should be among the reading list for university students who study international politics. We also need a more simple explanations of antizionism and how it is actually anti-jewish, because only more or less intellectual people will read this and understand.
This is an excellent commentary. I listened to almost all proceedings yesterday but missed this opening statement. It most likely explains a couple of the commissioners questions which seemed to be trying to find this point at which antizionism is political commentary and criticism Israel.
Notwithstanding the definition of Zionism and acceptance of tte IHRA definition - at this stage - it seemed at odds and, I think, misses entirely the question around justified criticism or the elements in the definition about holding Israel to different standards
the questions appeared to be based on an assumption that the criticism is both justified and reasonable in comparison to others
Absolutely spot on. I wonder if they’d apply the same ridiculous logic to Islamophobia. I’m guessing no. At what point does it cross the line to antisemitism. If “F the Jews” and “gas the Jews” wasn’t enough on October 8, 2023 - at what point is that “anti Zionism” not antisemitic. Beggars belief.
I am a simple thinker… the terms being debated , sadly , I think are a deliberate distraction from the focus of “ Jew hate” , which should be the centre of the discussion.
Yes, the argument i'm making is that there is a way of hating Jews operating under a term that is not being classified as Jew hate. The point of this work is to explain that this is happening in order to get the conversation to where you're suggesting it needs to be.
With better understanding of the words being used, the 'deliberate distraction' you refer to can be exposed :)
I hope you’ve submitted these ideas for consideration. Also that you’ve kept it simple!
This needed to be said. We cannot accept any distortion of truth and reality because it always starts with dismissing or ignoring what seems like little things and before we know it our lives are turned upside down.
Thank you Laura
Thank you again, Josh, for another powerful set of insights. For the Maccabee in you. For not giving up on us! 🙏💗
Joshua,
Many thanks for this exceptional piece. It is as clearly and perfectly articulated as I’ve encountered.
What you are doing Joshua is not only enough, but vitally important. Using the correct language and naming our current mutation of Jew-hate precisely as antizionism is foundational. Your voice is clearly exposing and socially outing the eliminatory rhetoric of antizionists. Antizionists are calling for violence and murder of Jews while framing their genocidal ideology as a moral fight for human rights. You, Adam Louis-Klein, Naya Lekht & Andrew Pessin are exposing these deadly libels for what they are - exactly the same tropes that have been used by bigots to kill Jews for 3,200 years. Antizionism is a hate movement.
This hits hard.
As I see it, Antizionism is even more TABOO than antisemitism. Whereas antisemitism can be used to describe anything from relatively benign stereotyping all the way to overt hateful bigotry, antizionism is inherently genocidal, even if it's not always intentional.
We must not let these bigots play this linguistic shell game. Let's call out antizionism and Jew-hatred for what they are - violations of our universal moral TABOOS against overt hateful bigotry (as it would be towards any group). If we do not ostracize these bigots out of polite society, as we did to marginalize and defeat the KKK here in the US, their hate will normalize and further spiral into violence and anarchy. That is how we can and must #MakeTaboosTabooAgain.
Here's a recent piece of mine published by Andrew Pessin in ICSA laying out this argument: https://icsa.substack.com/p/by-erez-levin-the-linguistic-shell
Is the hate antizionist hate? Well if so, your hate isn’t as bad as that other form of Jew hate…. You know, antisemitism. That’s what I hear… Call me paranoid. I don’t particularly care if someone throws a brick through my window, calls for my business to be boycotted, doxxes me and threatens my child or hunts me on Bondi Beach because they identify as antisemitic or antizionist. It’s because I’m a Jew and because they hate Jews
Pleasure to read!
Hete my little ( Dutch inspired) drop on the ocean. Thanks for pointing the direction
Anti-Zionism is not a political opinion. It is a hate movement. More violent. More dangerous.
Violence and intimidation continue. People call them “incidents”. They talk about “allowing it to rub it antisemitism”. Meanwhile, that movement is organizing, even underground.
There are limits. Violence is never allowed. Stay away from our Jewish fellow citizens. Stay away from the National Monument on Dam Square. Stay away from what we cherish and celebrate together.
Call it what it is. Anti-Zionism denies Israel’s right to exist and takes away Jewish self-determination. It gives a free pass for violence. Everything becomes black and white: criticism or nuance = “Zionist” = target. Our freedom of speech, of existence, of being who we are, is under attack.
The logic is perverse: Jews worldwide are guilty for one small country. “Jews” is deliberately replaced with “Zionists”. Old Jew-hatred in a new jacket.
Look at Dam Square: a place of mourning defaced and abused. Commemorations and celebrations are hijacked for protests about Gaza. Jewish mourning is taken away, participants are intimidated. Vandalism and insults become normal.
This undermines empathy and breaks trust. Right where that is most damaging: at national commemorations and festivities. Places to find each other and heal division.
It’s a big danger: making us vulnerable to manipulation. They feel powerless and shut down. They lose the courage to resist. Meanwhile, radicalization and violence increase.
This is no coincidence. It’s a pattern:
Jews get labeled “Zionist”.
Anyone who adds nuance gets the same label.
Collective guilt follows.
Intimidation and violence become “political expression”.
Criticism of policy is allowed. Anti-Zionism demands that Israel has no right to exist. That makes it dangerous. It normalizes hate. Right in places that should be safe.
In short: anti-Zionism is not derailed criticism. It is unacceptable. Make anti-Zionism punishable and equate it with antisemitism.
What needs to happen?
Is origin a criterion for value again? Intervene at the NOS. Our public broadcaster must stop presenting activism as news. No more blindly repeating “genocide” or “apartheid”. State facts. Name sources. Name the hate.
Off the streets. All slogans and signs calling for the abolition of a country or people must go. Out of public space.
Ban the symbols. No flags, clothing or banners from groups that say: another country or people must go. If you deny the right to exist, you don’t belong on the street.
No religion as cover. Hiding your call for genocide behind a holy book? Not allowed. Public safety comes first. The law comes before religious hatred.
Stop lying in the media. Don’t call a demo “pro-Palestinian” if it calls for Israel to be gone. That means supporting Hamas. And Hamas is genocidal, misogynist, homophobic and totalitarian. That’s not “pro” anything decent.
So: make anti-Zionism punishable and equate it with antisemitism.
I applaud your articulacy and delineation of the various in all this. In a less articulate way, what I'm coming up against continually in one form or other is the attestation (well, in fact it's becoming a demand now) that "I have no problem at all with Jews as long as they condemn the genocidal Zionist state". That's antisemitism, anti-Zionism and anti-Israelism all wrapped up in one inseparable bundle. How do we even begin to respond? And why should we? If they don't see (or are unwilling to admit) the prejudices behind the formulation of their demand then we are getting nowhere, except to understand further the depths of what we are dealing with.
Submit this to the RC if you haven’t already. It needs to be understood.
Thanks again - essential reading
From a Maccabee and timid Georgian
Excellent and logical article. In 2024 I picked a book from my Uni library, a some 500 page about the history of Jew-persecution in Portugal in the 16th century. The book was written in the 19th century I think, and is based on real contemporary historical documents and chronicles archived in libraries. I was flabbergasted to have realised that the logic of today’s antizionism seemed to be exactly the same as the logic of the 16th century anti Judaism. Yes, there are some quantitative differences, of course, four centuries have passed, we drive cars and fly planes. But no qualitative difference. Thank you Joshua for articulating so vividly and convincingly.
I would also add. You cannot either allow or agree with the whole antizionist Western movement that Israel governs badly. Because, my antizionist friends told me what they think, and here it is, paraphrasing: “when Netanyahu is gone, everything will settle down.” I wish that was true, but I don’t think so. Because, what my antizionist friends want, is to keep overthrowing Israel’s government until a new government is elected and admits that Israel has stolen Arab/Palestinian land. That’s the bottom line. Plus, how is Israel’s government worse than any other country’s government? And why, in this existential war for Israel, should the government be continually criticised by outsiders? Leave this to the insiders – Israelis and Jews, but not the fanatic antizionist mob. You can criticise your own ones.
The problem also is that anti-Israeli or antizionist crowds are not completely unanimous. Some of them don’t even know whether they are antizionists or not, they just criticise Israel. More sophisticated layers within this crowd excepted, there are two major kinds:
1) First kind. I know personally and have talked with them, they are left-wing Australians, non-Jews, and quite reasonable nice people, educated etc., They say that the problem is Netanyahu/Israel’s current government. OK, some of us might agree.
2) Second kind are those fanatic mobs who are pushing the narrative that Jews came from Europe and colonised and oppressed poor Arab Muslims (and Arab Christians) of Palestine.
Let’s eliminate the second kind for now, and leave those more reasonable and nice critics of Israel. The problem with the first kind is, that, when you dig in deeper, they will merge with the second kind, ultimately. Because, for those first “nice” kind of antizionists, any Israeli government, which does whatever IDF is doing in Gaza and Lebanon and Iran, which is, trying to eliminate terror groups, which, BTW, is not possible without civilian collateral damage, will be genocidal and unjustified for them. They don’t mention true genocides committed by Muslims (in our case), it goes against their adopted narrative and detracts from the evil of Israel. They call IDF thugs, my musician friends on FB, not dobbing them, they say it publicly. So, unless Israel and its IDF “thugs” stop fighting Hamas and other terrorists, in order to avoid the civilian deaths of the oppressed "Palestinians,” no Israeli government will satisfy those nice left of the first kind. And that’s where the nicer first kind coalesces with those aggressive antizionists for whom the Israel should have never been established in the first place.
“There is no version of Israel that satisfied the antizionist” – exactly, that’s why, the critique of Israel’s government should be left for Israeli citizens, or amongst the Jews themselves, and the international antizionist mob better start criticising their own governments and their own people and ideologies and behaviours. There will never be any government in Israel, that will satisfy either the first or the second kind. Unless, of course, Israel stops fighting the terrorists who represent the “oppressed” people of Palestine whom Israel colonised. And not all Jews are targeted as Zionists BTW, Sarah Schwartz is not.
This should be among the reading list for university students who study international politics. We also need a more simple explanations of antizionism and how it is actually anti-jewish, because only more or less intellectual people will read this and understand.
This is an excellent commentary. I listened to almost all proceedings yesterday but missed this opening statement. It most likely explains a couple of the commissioners questions which seemed to be trying to find this point at which antizionism is political commentary and criticism Israel.
Notwithstanding the definition of Zionism and acceptance of tte IHRA definition - at this stage - it seemed at odds and, I think, misses entirely the question around justified criticism or the elements in the definition about holding Israel to different standards
the questions appeared to be based on an assumption that the criticism is both justified and reasonable in comparison to others
More power to you
Absolutely spot on. I wonder if they’d apply the same ridiculous logic to Islamophobia. I’m guessing no. At what point does it cross the line to antisemitism. If “F the Jews” and “gas the Jews” wasn’t enough on October 8, 2023 - at what point is that “anti Zionism” not antisemitic. Beggars belief.
I am a simple thinker… the terms being debated , sadly , I think are a deliberate distraction from the focus of “ Jew hate” , which should be the centre of the discussion.
Yes, the argument i'm making is that there is a way of hating Jews operating under a term that is not being classified as Jew hate. The point of this work is to explain that this is happening in order to get the conversation to where you're suggesting it needs to be.
With better understanding of the words being used, the 'deliberate distraction' you refer to can be exposed :)