The science of hating Zionists, why most anti-Zionism is antisemitic

hating-zionistsSome pieces are easy to write. I go to an event and hear people suggest that the Zionists were responsible for the holocaust, or witness mention of Jewish power. If it is a speech by Max Blumenthal or Tom Suarez, I will hear tales of Jewish conspiracy. I return home, analyse the recordings, research, and write. It is an easy process to follow.

The more difficult pieces are those that challenge the narratives.  The message is not a simple ‘one-liner’. There can be discomfort in internally challenging deeply held beliefs, an inability to ‘cross the divide’. People are even uncertain sometimes ‘which side’ the piece is on.

This is one of those items. To make the journey with me, you need to let go of some of your beliefs. Ignore statements that challenge your history and set aside all you know about the creation of the conflict between 1917 and 1967.

I am going to ask you to immerse yourself inside the Palestinian narrative. I am doing so because I am going to use their narrative, not just to show that Zionism is a movement of national liberation but to forcefully drive home the idea that the Balfour apology campaign, anti-Zionism and the entire settler colonial paradigm are all knee deep in antisemitic thought.

An alternate universe

The Arab narrative suggests that the British had written a letter as a nation of empire and handed a land that was not theirs over to a rich and powerful European sect. The British then spent 30 years facilitating this movement. Eventually, in 1948, the Palestinians were brutally expelled from their land by these invading racist white Europeans.

Today, millions of the descendants of the victims of this ‘Nakba’ are scattered. Many live as refugees in Lebanon, Syria and Jordan. Others have gone further afield, and you can find them in nations across the globe. Waiting with their deeds and their keys until they, or their children, or their grandchildren, can eventually return.

That return is described as a movement for national liberation. “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free”. ‘Fatah’, the largest faction of the PLO, was originally called the ‘Palestinian National Liberation Movement’.


Central to the liberation movement is the return of the refugees. Those that were ‘scattered’:

“the “right of return” for the descendants to their land and homes in “Palestine” will be valid for all eternity, it is not subject to negotiation, and is both a group and personal “right” that cannot be cancelled.” (Palestinian Diaspora in Europe” conference 2015)

The same message is repeated here:

“Palestinians have repeatedly said that the right of return enshrined in various United Nations resolutions is non-negotiable and does not have an expiry date.”

The Palestinian right of return. An inalienable right. A hereditary condition, with Palestinian ‘nationhood’ passing from parent to child.

In this manner, 70 years later, the struggle, even the violent struggle, is framed as a movement of National liberation rather than a struggle for personal freedoms. The Arab who was born in Lebanon, whose parents were born in Lebanon, does not strive for freedom in Lebanon, but rather to experience the liberation of his ‘homeland’. A land neither he nor his parents ever trod. This movement of national liberation has full time support from a long list of anti-Zionist activists.

Let us go back in history

I was in Rome in August, and saw the Arch of Titus. The arch is almost 2000 years old. Constructed to commemorate Titus’ victories, including the siege of Jerusalem. There embedded into the south panel are representations of the spoils taken from the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem.

titus archSo, let us rewind 2000 years. The Romans had sacked Jerusalem, destroyed the 2nd temple. Jews were forbidden entrance to their holy city. The final rebellion in a new uprising to regain their independence (133–135 CE) was crushed.  These Jewish people, were fighting a struggle that was clearly a movement of national liberation.

So, we have two movements of national liberation. One following the Roman military actions the other the current Palestinian cause. (Remember, up to this point our journey was not to question the validity of the narrative).

Contradiction and a mirror of Zionism

Now let us return to the real world and realise that the anti-Zionist position only recognises one of these liberation movements.  What we can call ‘Palestionism’. We call it this because this movement seems to have mirrored the creation of its own narrative on the Jewish experience.  The Palestinians have a ‘diaspora’, they have an ‘expulsion’, they are a persecuted people, claim to have been in the land for ‘millennia’, they suggest the invaders were ‘European’, their fight was against the greatest empire in the world, they use the Nakba as their ‘Holocaust’, they seek to return to their ‘promised land’, Jerusalem is their holy city and so on. It is almost a carbon copy of the Jewish narrative (minus of course much of the historical and factual support).

Today you can see in a university campus near you, a child born in the west, whose parents were born in the west, talking about returning to a place they have never been. In addition to this, they seek your support to help scrub away an existing nation (a liberal democracy) from the map. Anti-Zionists like Ilan Pappe call this destructive force ‘a movement of national liberation’.

In turn they call the national liberation movement of the Jews, a ‘colonial settler project’ that must be ended. Yet the roots of Zionism, immersed in the historical journey of the Jewish people was clearly at the outset a national liberation movement.

Questions about Zionists

So therefore, one thing becomes clear. If at some point, the Jewish movement of national liberation became an aggressive ’settler colonial’ project, then so too can the Palestinian cause. The question then becomes how? In the version of the anti-Zionists, what mistake will the Palestinians have to make, to lose ‘their right’ to the land? Let us look at the excuses they use against Zionism.

Uncertain roots?

Well this doesn’t hold.There are many uncertainties to the Palestinian claim to nationhood. 100 years ago, the Arabs of Ramallah sought to be Syrians, trying to support Faisal as monarch.  Similarly, we know there was large Arab immigration, with regional economic revival attracting many migrants.

There is also no history book of these people that is dated before the 1960’s. Evidence of too many Arabs during the mandate period refusing to accept a Palestinian identity. Even the status of the refugee contains absurdities such as granting Palestinian identity to people who had only entered the area 3 years before. Given that by 135ad, the Jewish people already had a well-known history book several hundred years old. There is little comparison here.

Leaving the area?

Well this doesn’t hold either. Most of the people who claim to be the refugees of this liberation movement are outside of the original mandate lands. Most in Jordan, but you can meet them anywhere. The Palestinian ‘diaspora’, has already left. As the dispersal created the raison d’etre for the movement it clearly cannot be used to deny it.

Another interesting contradictory position opens here. The anti-Zionists suggest the Zionists were the minority in Palestine (thus discounting the voice of the Jewish diaspora). These are the same people who refuse to discount the voice of the Palestinian diaspora.

The group isn’t visibly homogeneous?

That cannot work because over time, every group will adopt some characteristics of a host nation, either culturally or physically through intermarriage.  British Palestinian Karl Sabbagh is a product of a mixed marriage, yet clearly identifies with the Palestinian right to return. To apply this as a rule would be absurd and condemn any exiled people to a wretched end, unable to sustain a national right to return. The passage of time must be irrelevant or the right has no meaning.

Additionally, this element is dangerous for the Palestinian argument. The Jews were an exiled people, with a history, an identity, a language, a culture and a religion. The Palestinians from Akko were no different to those in Beirut. Those in Ramallah, no different from those in Amman. Those in Nazareth, no different from those in Damascus.  Defining a Jew is easy, whether in Yemen or Iraq or the USA. How do you define a Palestinian today? How would you have defined them just 80 years ago? Homogeneity counts against the Palestinian narrative because they become indistinguishable from their neighbours.

Change of land ownership?

This doesn’t work either. The Jews were exiled a long time ago, even though they always maintained some presence. And yes, many rulers have come and gone. But the rulers before the Jews returned were the Turks and then the British, not the Palestinians. Ownership cannot have relevance here either.  Additionally, it places the same constraints as the previous argument-  The passage of time must be irrelevant or the right has no meaning.

The journey of the people?

Is relative acceptance of the Jewish people in host nations an issue. No of course not.  What about Ghetto’s, persecution, massacres, even genocide. Everywhere they went, Jews were trodden on by their hosts, eternally dependent on the whim of the current leadership in the nation they resided. There is no story of persistent persecution like the story of the Jewish people.

All this of course leaves us with a problem.  If we cannot identify what made Zionism a settler colonial project? When will the ‘eternal right’ of the Palestinians to return also turn them into a settler colonial project?

Or in others words, those calling Zionism a colonial mission, those such as Ilan Pappe and Blumenthal need to create the skeleton argument by which we can identify how Palestinians can cross the line into settler colonialism and become illegitimate. What are their own measures for making this identification?

Antisemitism and Zionists

They cannot do this of course. Because their position will simply fall apart. It does not have enough academic cohesion to apply a framework to it. No factual basis and no historical underpinning. At the highest level, those that view the Arab cause as a movement of national liberation, logically must accept the Zionist cause as one also (the reverse does not have to be true). Within this consistent position those people can logically support a two-state framework.

Another consistent position, are those who would seek accommodation between the sides, but support neither national movement. However, these people would not push for a right of return. Rather they would blame Lebanon for the abuse of people born in Lebanon, turn to Jordan to deal with human rights abuse in Jordan and blame Hamas for any deprivation of rights in Gaza. This argument would also consider those people claiming to be Palestinian who were born in the West as being out of the equation.

But ‘one staters’, the campus and BDS anti-Zionists, have no such consistency. They push full Palestinian rights but do not accept Zionism as a legitimate movement at all. So how can people who so clearly understand the concept of a displaced people, those who speak of inalienable human rights, look at Jews running from pogroms or the holocaust and call it colonialism?

The only way is through the denial of the ‘Jewish’ essence in Zionism. To deny me the right to my own identity. In other words, to attack the Jewish story, Jewish history, the Jewish self. To attack the ‘Jew’. Blatant  Antisemitism.

This narrative within the anti-Zionist discourse must be antisemitic. Because to activate itself it must play down the Jew in the Jew. It must be inherently biased against Jewish history and the Jewish identity.

It may do it through the creation of myths, such as the Khazar fallacy. Or through attempts to split the Jewish identity by suggesting Ashkenazi are racists and Sephardi are Arabs. Or by demonising the Zionists, denying the persecution, or suggesting Jewish people are powerful rather than weak. All these elements, methods through which to explain the inherent contradiction of anti-Zionism, are present in anti-Zionist discourse.

So, settler colonial studies that focus on Zionism is an academic course in antisemitism. Almost every single voice who speaks of Israel as a settler colonial movement supports the Palestinian right of return. That the rights of a 3rd generation British citizen can outweigh those of someone who was born in Tel Aviv, to parents who were born in Tel Aviv, to grandparents who were born in Tel Aviv. The hypocrisy of the argument is difficult to overstate. This position has to place Jews second to everyone else to be coherent. To deny them their history, to push back their claims for liberation and suggest only they (the Jews) do not have the rights of others. The ‘apologise for Balfour’ campaign is also built within this environment. It too is antisemitic to the core.

And all this before we begin attacking the clear issues with the historicity of the narrative the anti-Zionists are disseminating. Until 1948 Zionism was a movement of national liberation. Today it is at the heart of the state of Israel. Anyone deliberately denying the historical underpinnings of this movement, or demonising its central characteristics, whilst at the same time holding aloft the ‘justice’ of the Palestinian people , is standing knee deep in a septic antisemitic swamp.


Follow, like, donate

Keep up to date, subscribe to the blog by using the link on the page. Follow the FB page for this blog: and follow me on Twitter.

Please if you can, also consider making a donation. Mine is an independent action and research is expensive and time consuming. Even producing just one of these piece does take days, sometimes weeks, and whilst I do what I can, there are serious constraints that impact on what is possible. Your assistance can and does make a difference.


16 thoughts on “The science of hating Zionists, why most anti-Zionism is antisemitic

  1. You have left out two important aspects of the true history of the Palestinians.The first is that there was never a Palestinian entity or Palestinians, until they were invented by Ahmed Shuqeiri during and after the Six-Day War. The local Arabs always identified with neighbouring countries, and after all the Ottoman province was called Syria-Palestine. But even more important is that the land was a desert (except in the far north, the Huleh region which was a malarial swamp). Malaria was rife, there is an Israel stamp, issued in the 1950s celebrating the eradication of malaria which still existed around Sodom. By far the largest majority of Palestinians cannot trace their ancestry in the land further back than 120 years, and they came because the Jews were beginning to revive the land, for example, expanding the port of Jaffa. The whole Palestinian narrative is a fiction, THAT is why it cannot be compared with the Jewish narrative. Added to this, the fact that in every Jewish prayer there is the longing to return to the land of our ancestors, the equivalent in Islam is Mecca!

    1. Well said Josephine.

      I attend as many meetings as I can most of which, are pro-Palestinian. I am not inhibited in my questions at Q&A. However, let me share with you the following:

      The nastiest, most vehement anti-Zionists is the left-wing middle-classes English white person. The Palestinian descendent, many of whom live here, are by far the most open-minded and willing to talk to me. This tells me that the left-wing are trying to commandeer the Israel/Palestine issue as one of the underdog against the capitalist. In fact, I don’t feel that they care for the Palestinians as such. It is the principle that they are supporting.

  2. I don’t understand why it is such a problem if people want to migrate to Israel. It is not disputed that in the conflict which followed the UN Resolution in 1948. If they or thier descendants really want to return, why not? I have even read arguments that saying this is anti-semitic, because it means the destruction of the Jewish State, but I don’t follow that. I defend the right of all refugees everywhere to return to where they were living when a conflict ends, and I don’t see any reason the change that view.

    The UN Resolution which created the Jewish and Arab states in Palestine contained the following:

    Guaranteeing to all persons equal and non-discriminatory rights in civil, political, economic and religious matters and the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms, including freedom of religion, language, speech and publication, education, assembly and association;

    Preserving freedom of transit and visit for all residents and citizens of the other State in Palestine and the City of Jerusalem, subject to considerations of national security, provided that each State shall control residence within its borders.

    Would this not be a basis for peace between the Jewish and the Arab state in Palestine? Can we not have a strategy to put this conflict behind us?

    1. Of course, the UN resolution did NOT create a Jewish stae in Palestine. It created it in ex-Turkish territory known as the Mandated area of Palestine. The difference is crucial because to follow your train of thought would be to suggest that the state country or nation of Palestine actually existed, and that the State of Israel came about at the xpense of some poor disenfranchised antional entity…
      Additionally, the right of return has nothing to do with identity of a usurped “Palestinian Homeland”. As you know, the term only cames about in the mid 60s, in Egypt, on advice from Russian ‘advisors’ and following Arafat’s visit to North Vietnamese strategists who suggested the reframing of the Arab-Israeli conflict not as a conflict “against” anybody ( you can put in the word “Jews” here…) but rather as a ‘liberation movement’.
      Clearly, even this re-framing is problematic because because it pre-supposes that the Arabs are ‘liberating’ the land from a foreign aggressor. Not many would resaonable argue that Jews are indigenous to the Levant and that the increas in the Arab population in this previously sparsely populated area was because of Jewish enterprise. Thus the migration of Arabs into what is today Israel was essentially an economic migration of Muslim Arabs following Jewish money into the Yishuv.
      There are reams more to add, but I hope that just these two points will provide additional grist to your mill.

    2. Kevin.

      It is always difficult trying to get inside a conflict you are not a part of. Mainly because it will rarely make much sense. Having been brought up in modern Europe, more specifically in London, I am used to people of all colours and faiths being friends and neighbours. If in this example people get along, then why can this not be played out everywhere. Simples.

      I take issue with the right of return because it is being played out between two nationalisms. If people want to migrate to the UK to live in the UK. Hey why not. If people hate the UK, think we are responsible for all the evils in the world and want to come not to live with our flag, but to change it, then I think everyone would be wary. No state sees fit to commit suicide.

      Additionally, the partition (and this is important) *only came about because of the fighting.*. Balfour never intended partition. The mandate never intended partition. So we have to ask why partition? Why did everyone think this was the only solution? It was because of the violence (mainly Arab driven). Once partition is accepted, as it was, then the two state formula becomes the logical one. Split them up until they all learn to behave. In this scenario, allowing one nation to flood another whilst maintaining its own integrity becomes bad. Both from the angle of continual settlement building and from the angle of a right of return to Israel. No problem with them entering a future Palestinian state. Two nations, two peoples.

      I think if you look deeper into the resolution (which remember, the Arabs rejected), there is a section on population exchange. It may not work with our sensibilities in 2016, but let us judge the 1940’s by 1940’s standards. Partition understood there would be those who wanted to switch sides and allocated for it. Under that umbrella those that left voluntarily (not those expelled) could be seen as having used their right to switch sides.

      I also think we need to remember that the actual refugees have almost all gone. These refugees were weaponised. The situation become hereditary. A unique status for the Palestinian refugee. So when you talk of those who left, returning, you have to remember, that none of these people actually left. In most cases, neither did their parents. The question is why are they still refugees? Why is someone born in Lebanon, who father is born in Lebanon, whose grandfather was born in Lebanon, not a Lebanese citizen? You then have to ask why is his plight blamed on Israel, rather than Lebanon? Or put it this way. The migrants in Europe, is their treatment Syria’s fault / responsibility or ours? Do you believe in 70 years Europe will still have them in camps and if so, whose fault would it be?

      I would love to put this conflict behind us. I worked a long time over there trying to build bridges. There are too many people invested in making sure peace doesn’t come for it to currently be on the table. Things can change quickly, but at the moment, neither the will nor the tools are in place.

    3. Sir – If only it was that simple. The propaganda and re-writing of history that has ensued since 1948 is quite a maze.

      If it helps, here is some information. In 1948, Jordan allowed 700,000 Arabs from Palestine to stay in Jordan for an indefinite period. 69 years later, that number is now 2,000,000 still choosing to live in refugee camps which means that the majority of the ‘refugees’ have never seen or been to Israel.

      Despite the generosity of King Abdullah ll to take on Jordanian citizenship, this has been declined in the belief that ‘one day, ‘they will become Palestinian citizens’.

      Your thoughts please.

  3. People don’t live in history they live in situations. The situation is that there is one state between the river and the sea and if you believe that that is going to change, you probably believe there are fairies at the bottom of your garden.

    The task is to democratise this one state.

    1. Stephen. Nations are not identified through land mass, although strategic borders often have designed the boundaries of states. One only has to look at the break up of the east European states to know what happens when people arbitrarily decide everyone can live together happily inside a single border. Not sure where the utopian idea comes from. Not against it on principle, just because it doesn’t work. 3rd generation born in Lebanon – Lebanese? Or an additional extra to your one state idea?

      1. David the de facto one state between the river and the sea is not an idea of mine. It is, well, a simple fact. I have never advocated for it, nor do I bear any responsibility for its coming about. I merely say that given this is a fact that isn’t going away ……..

        1. But there is no de facto state between the river and the sea and never has been, and it is a bald, outright lie to claim there is.

  4. Well thank you for the replies, I am here to educate myself 🙂 I am sure there are good people here who can help me, and of course I am quite sure there are fairies at the bottom of my garden. Well spotted.

    @Alan I will check your point about the UN Resolution.

  5. Well it seems clear to me that Resolution 181 intended to establish a Jewish state and an Arab state:

    Independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem, set forth in Part III of this Plan, shall come into existence in Palestine two months after the evacuation of the armed forces of the mandatory Power has been completed but in any case not later than 1 October 1948.

    That was voted on, and for me it is the basis for my acceptance of the State of Israel and the State of Palestine. We can argue until eternity if it was a good idea, but for me the vote was taken and it should be accepted. Trying to deny that either israel or Palestine don’t have a right to exist doesn’t help conflict resolution.

    @Alan, I accept the refugees and all their descendents who want to return to their homeland have an obligation to accept the flag they find there and must desire to live in peace with those who are there. I also accept that this question should not be “weaponised”. But I still accept their right to return, just as I accept the right of Jews to return after 2000 years, and I cannot accept that this is in any way anti-semitic.

    It is important for me to have a clear understanding of anti-semitism. I live in Pforzheim, a power base of the AfD , a party where idiots believe the Protokolls of the Elders of Zion are valid historical sources. Every day I pass by a former Jewish school and the site of the burned down Synagogue. There are Stolpersteine on every corner recording the places where Jewish people lived and what happened to them in the Holocaust. I take the view that every single one of those former residents still alive and their descendents have a right of return and that their property should be restored to them. The synagogue should be rebuilt, every stone of it. No compromises.

    An yes I feel the same way about all those who fled the conflict in the Jewish and Arab states in 1948. Their ethnic origin is of no relevance to that position.

Comments are closed.