Zionism is not a perfect ideology. It is not sacred. It is a historical movement born out of existential distress, shaped by different currents, marked by mistakes, shifts, internal divisions, and ongoing debate. Like many other national liberation movements, it evolved through conflict and contradiction. The difference is that when it comes to Zionism, its very existence is now portrayed as a moral problem.
Criticism of Israeli policy is legitimate. Opposition to particular governments is a natural part of democratic life. But abolishing Zionism is not criticism of policy. It is a rejection of the foundational idea that the Jewish people have the right to self determination. This is not a debate about borders, but about the very legitimacy of Jewish sovereignty.
Modern anti Zionist discourse presents itself as a human rights framework. It uses universal moral language and claims neutrality. In practice, however, it operates selectively. It denies the legitimacy of a Jewish nation state while accepting dozens of other nation states as self evident. Jewish nationalism is framed as racism, while Arab or Palestinian nationalism is treated as an authentic expression of identity.
This is both a logical and a moral failure.
Zionism is not a colonial project in the classical sense. It did not originate from a foreign empire sending settlers to a distant land. It emerged from a people without sovereignty, security, or refuge, returning to the geographic and cultural space in which its identity was formed. One may criticize how this process unfolded. One should examine injustices committed along the way. But declaring the entire project illegitimate erases the unique historical context of the Jewish people.
The abolition of Zionism demands something of Jews that is demanded of no other people. It asks them to relinquish sovereignty in the name of abstract morality, even when that sovereignty emerged from persecution, displacement, and annihilation. This is not a universal moral standard. It is a targeted one. And when such a standard is applied to only one group, its implications cannot be ignored.
It is often argued that opposing Zionism is not anti Jewish but anti state. This distinction collapses under scrutiny. A state is not an abstract entity. It is the political expression of a human collective. Denying the legitimacy of a Jewish state directly undermines the rights of millions of Jews to self determination, collective security, language, and culture.
Moreover, abolishing Zionism offers no realistic alternative. The proposal of a single state is not a solution but a slogan. In the reality of a violent national conflict between two peoples with strong collective identities, one state would not produce peace but an ongoing struggle for power. Demanding that Jews abandon sovereignty in advance is not reconciliation. It is unilateral defeat.
Anti Zionist rhetoric also ignores a simple fact. Zionism has already been realized. The State of Israel exists. Millions of people were born into it. They are not an ideological experiment but human beings with lives, families, language, culture, and fears. Discourse that speaks of abolishing Zionism erases them entirely. It treats a living society as an idea that can simply be undone.
There is also a deeper process of dehumanization at work. Zionism is portrayed not as a historical response to vulnerability but as a malicious intent. Jews are not seen as a people acting under threat, but as a calculating collective. This reproduces old patterns of attributing collective evil, even when dressed in modern language.
It is crucial to distinguish. One can be deeply critical of Israel while recognizing its right to exist. One can oppose occupation while affirming the right of both peoples to self determination. The abolition of Zionism crosses a line. It does not seek resolution but denies the legitimacy of one side from the outset.
Those who genuinely seek peace should be wary of this discourse. Peace does not grow out of collective humiliation but out of mutual recognition. Not from erasing identities but from acknowledging them. Any serious political process begins with the premise that both peoples have the right to be here, not that one must disappear.
Zionism is not immune from criticism. But abolishing it is not a moral correction. It is an act of erasure. An erasure that deepens conflict rather than advancing justice. Anyone committed to human rights must include the Jewish right to self determination, even while opposing specific policies of the State of Israel.
Because the moment one people is denied what all others are granted, the issue is no longer political debate. It becomes a dangerous moral verdict.
Comments
Post a Comment