'Anti-Zionism' is an existential threat to progressive, liberal values.

The presence of antisemitism in these movements — even a hint of it that is left unchallenged — undermines everything progressives and liberals do on every other issue.

Holocaust inversion is a now-classic “pro-Palestinian” tactic. (photo: Nikolas Gannon/Unsplash)

Please consider supporting our mission to help everyone better understand and become smarter about the Jewish world. A gift of any amount helps keep our platform free of advertising and accessible to all.

---

This is a guest essay written by Pat Johnson of Pat’s Substack.

You can also listen to the podcast version of this essay on Apple Podcasts, YouTube Music, YouTube, and Spotify.

---

Is “anti-Zionism” antisemitism?

The anti-Israel activists who are swarming the streets, unfurling banners outside synagogues, chanting “From the river to the sea!” and otherwise terrorizing Jews worldwide, say no.

Anyone with any sensitivity to the forms antisemitism has taken over time recognize strains of anti-Jewish animus in our political dialogue right now. Still, it is possible that the people who are responsible for this genuinely believe they are free of prejudice and are merely expressing political opinions and arguing for an end to the war.

Whether or not activism is having a positive impact on Palestinians and/or Israelis, if our positions are guided by bigotry, however deeply embedded and unconscious, our integrity is on the line. We can say that our motivation doesn’t matter if we come to the right conclusion — the ends justify the means — but what if we have come to precisely the wrong conclusion because prejudice drives our decision-making?

It is certainly understandable that people would react defensively when accused of antisemitism. None of us like to face charges of bigotry. Moreover, antisemitism has led to some of history’s greatest crimes against humanity. So the accusation is a bit weighted, to put it mildly.

But I am not talking about the people who firebomb synagogues, as someone did recently in my hometown of Vancouver. Everyone agrees that is antisemitic.

I am talking about a far more subtle thing. And we are not acknowledging this elephant because we do not understand the nuance at play.

The problem is that we come to the wrong conclusion because we do not understand the question.

When we are asked to address the role of antisemitism in the discourse around Israel and “Palestine,” we are not suggesting something as crude as the idea that activists hate Israel, therefore they must hate Jews. It is a little more complex and subtle than this.

But when we dig around a little, we see some obvious indicators that the problem is not only that antisemitism absolutely does exist in the discourse. The bigger problem may be that the very people for whom confronting and unlearning racism is a sacred trust deny, in this case, that it even exists.

It is not the crime, in other words, so much as the cover-up.

The first sign something is deeply amiss is that the people who need to be thinking about this steadfastly refuse to do so. (What could be more dismissive and rejecting of introspection than the sentence, “Anti-Zionism is not antisemitism”?)

We are talking (almost exclusively) about progressive, liberal, Left-leaning people. In every instance, when confronted with the potential of bias, we interrogate ourselves and search for signs of inherent prejudice.

Except in the case of Jews.

In this instance — antisemitism — we shut down introspection and discussion. Prejudice? “Of course! We all have it!” Antisemitism? “Not a chance!”

How — why — do the very people who have made self-reflection on race a key element of our ideology and identity get it so wrong on this one issue?

There are so many reasons we cannot address them all here. One is that we do not even understand what a Jew is. I have heard plenty of people dismiss antisemitism because “Judaism is a religion.” For people who are aggressively atheistic, any religion invites hostility.

For those who are more moderate, if Jewishness is a religious identity, we do not need to be any more concerned about it than we are about bigotry against Mormons or Methodists. Antisemitism cannot be racism, so we needn’t worry about it.

This is a failure to understand the unique identities of Jewish people (to say nothing about dismissing what has proven to be one of history’s most dangerous hatreds). Judaism is a religion, yes, but it is part of a broader identity. Jewishness is an ethnocultural identity, a peoplehood, a nation.

Antisemitism is different from other forms of racism, because Jewishness is different from other identities. The fact that our ignorance prevents us from understanding this does not grant us immunity to transgress our core values when it comes to this one people.

More at play, probably, are issues of confirmation bias and deeply ingrained prejudices.

To get to the root of this, we need to address some ugly ideas.

Israel has given up proportionately more land in peacetime than any country in history. In the faint hope of peace, Israel gave up the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt (that has bought decades of cold peace). Israel disengaged from the Gaza Strip. (We know how that turned out.) Israel offered almost the entire West Bank, as well as Gaza, to Palestinians during the Oslo Accords peace process and then-Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat overthrew the negotiating table.

Despite all these historical facts, the prevailing narrative depicts Israel as a grasping, greedy entity that takes other people’s stuff. A grasping, greedy entity that takes other people’s stuff is a classic antisemitic trope. That is how Jews have been collectively and individually viewed across centuries of antisemitism in Europe and elsewhere.

So, despite all the evidence to the contrary, when people hear Israel falsely accused of greedily expanding its territory, there is an ingrained bias deep in the minds of almost anyone raised in our culture that sets off a bell of recognition. “Yes,” says the atavistic rear part of our brain, “that sounds about right.”

This is confirmation bias. When you are raised on racist ideas about Jews — untrustworthy, devious, master negotiators — and then you hear pro-Israel voices recount the history of Arab-Israeli negotiations that almost led to Palestinian statehood but failed, your default, despite all evidence, is likely to blame the Jews.

The basic (anti-Israel) narrative of the Oslo Accords peace process is that the Palestinians never stood a chance. The negotiations were tipped against them. The scale was weighted to Israel’s advantage.

This is not just wrong — the entire world was dumbfounded when Arafat ended the constructive dialogue and launched the Second Intifada. It is almost certainly founded on antisemitic premises.

“They were never going to get a fair deal. No one can beat those people in a negotiation. The crafty Israelis must have talked rings around the poor, naive Palestinians.”

The surest proof is that, on a dime, global opinion sided with Palestinians and violence and against Israel and negotiations. It was so utterly illogical that something irrational was clearly at play.

There is a great deal more to say on this topic, but the first step to addressing a problem is acknowledging it exists — and that is what I am trying to do here. If this does not encourage activists to engage in introspection for the sake of Jewish people, maybe it will entice them to consider it from a perspective of crude self-interest.

When progressives, liberals, and others declare that “anti-Zionism is not antisemitism,” it is a betrayal not only of Jews, but of progressive, liberal values. The presence of antisemitism in these movements —  even a hint of it that is left unchallenged — undermines everything progressives and liberals do on every other issue.

Never mind the Jews. Antisemitism is an existential threat to progressive, liberal values.

---