Since October 7, 2023, debates about Israel, the Middle East, and the boundaries of legitimate criticism have intensified across Europe. In democratic societies, this is both inevitable and necessary. The policies of any government—including that of Israel—must remain open to scrutiny. Criticism of military strategy, settlement policy, coalition politics, or constitutional reforms is not only legitimate; it is a hallmark of democratic discourse.
But alongside legitimate criticism, another development has gained traction: the growing normalization of anti-Zionism as if it were merely one political viewpoint among many—morally neutral, historically detached, and unrelated to antisemitism.
That characterization deserves closer examination.
What Zionism Actually Means
At its core, Zionism is the movement affirming the right of the Jewish people to national self-determination in their historic homeland. It emerged in the late 19th century as a response to persistent antisemitism in Europe and the failure of emancipation to provide lasting security for Jewish communities.
Zionism is not a theological doctrine. It is not inherently right-wing or left-wing. Historically, it encompassed socialist, liberal, religious, and secular strands. What united these diverse currents was one central idea: Jews, like other peoples, are entitled to political self-determination.
The principle of self-determination is enshrined in Article 1 of the United Nations Charter. It underlies decolonization movements, independence struggles, and the modern international order. Ukrainians defending sovereignty, Baltic states asserting independence, Czechs and Slovaks forming separate republics—all are examples of this principle in practice.
The question, therefore, is straightforward: If self-determination is a universal right, why should it be denied uniquely to the Jewish people?
The Problem of Selective Denial
Critics often argue that anti-Zionism is not antisemitic because it targets a state, not a people. In theory, that distinction could hold. In practice, however, radical anti-Zionism frequently goes beyond criticism of specific policies and instead rejects the legitimacy of Jewish statehood itself.
This is where the issue becomes more complex.
The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism—adopted by numerous governments and institutions—notes that denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, for example by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor, may constitute antisemitism.
The key issue is not criticism. It is selectivity.
When the right to national self-determination is affirmed for every other group but rejected only for Jews, a double standard emerges. Double standards have historically been a recurring feature of antisemitic thinking. Jews are judged by criteria applied to no other people. Their collective existence is treated as uniquely suspect.
To be clear: not every critique of Zionism falls into this category. Political ideologies can be debated. Nation-states can be questioned. Borders and constitutional structures can be discussed. Freedom of expression protects even radical positions.
But there is a critical distinction between questioning nationalism in general and singling out the only Jewish state as inherently illegitimate.
From Critique to Delegitimization
Legitimate criticism addresses government conduct: settlement expansion, military decisions, judicial reforms, coalition agreements. These are policy matters.
Anti-Zionism in its radical form, by contrast, does not limit itself to policies. It targets the very existence of Israel as a Jewish state. It calls not for reform but for dissolution. It denies the legitimacy of Jewish collective sovereignty.
This shift—from policy critique to ontological negation—is decisive.
When Israel alone is portrayed as uniquely evil, uniquely colonial, uniquely racist; when comparisons to Nazi Germany become commonplace; when “Zionists” are invoked as a global force manipulating world events—the line between political critique and the recycling of classic antisemitic tropes becomes dangerously thin.
In many contemporary discourses, “Zionist” functions less as a neutral political descriptor and more as a coded substitute for “Jew.” Conspiracy narratives that once spoke of “Jewish power” now speak of “Zionist control.” The vocabulary has changed; the structure of the accusation has not.
Free Speech and Its Limits
In liberal democracies, not every antisemitic statement is criminal. Freedom of expression protects a wide range of views, including offensive and misguided ones. Criminal law typically intervenes only when there is incitement to hatred or violence.
But the absence of criminal liability does not imply moral or political neutrality.
A society committed to democratic values must be capable of naming patterns that undermine equality. Not every manifestation of antisemitism meets the threshold of criminal incitement. Yet antisemitism in any form corrodes democratic culture because it denies equal legitimacy to a minority’s collective identity.
Anti-Zionism that rejects Jewish self-determination does precisely that.
The Historical Dimension
The Jewish experience in Europe is not abstract history. For centuries, Jews were denied political belonging. They were tolerated as individuals but rejected as a collective. Emancipation promised equality, yet waves of exclusion and persecution persisted. The catastrophe of the Holocaust was not an accident of history; it was the extreme outcome of long-standing patterns of delegitimization.
In this historical context, the existence of a Jewish state represents more than a geopolitical fact. It embodies the recognition that Jews are not merely a religious minority but a people with collective political agency.
To argue that Jews may exist—but not as a sovereign political community—echoes a familiar structure: conditional acceptance.
A Necessary Distinction
None of this means that Israel is above criticism. On the contrary: democratic accountability is essential. Nor does it imply that every person who identifies as anti-Zionist harbors antisemitic intent.
Intent, however, is not the only relevant factor. Political ideas must also be evaluated by their structural implications.
When anti-Zionism becomes the categorical denial of Jewish statehood—while affirming the legitimacy of national self-determination elsewhere—it ceases to be a neutral political theory. It becomes a discriminatory standard applied uniquely to Jews.
That is why anti-Zionism, insofar as it delegitimizes Jewish self-determination, must be recognized as a contemporary manifestation of antisemitism.
The Universal Question
Ultimately, this debate is not about shielding a government from criticism. It is about the universality of principles.
Is the right to self-determination universal—or conditional?
Is equality before political norms consistent—or selective?
If universal principles are applied selectively, they lose their universality. And once exceptions are made for one people, the foundation of equal rights begins to erode.
A democratic society must defend free debate. But it must also defend the principle that no people’s collective existence is uniquely illegitimate.
Anti-Zionism that denies Jewish self-determination is not simply another political opinion. It is a challenge to the very idea of equal legitimacy among peoples.
Naming that challenge is not an attempt to silence debate. It is an attempt to preserve its moral foundation.
----------------------
Comments
Post a Comment