Posted By admin on July 9, 2016
Anti-Zionism is opposition to Zionism, broadly defined in the modern era as the opposition to the ethnonationalist and political movement of Jews and Jewish culture that supports the establishment of a Jewish state as a Jewish homeland in the territory defined as the historic Land of Israel (also referred to as Palestine, Canaan or the Holy Land) or to the modern State of Israel as defined as A Jewish and Democratic State.
The term is used to describe various religious, moral and political points of view, but their diversity of motivation and expression is sufficiently different that “anti-Zionism” cannot be seen as having a single ideology or source. According to many notable Jewish and non-Jewish sources, anti-Zionism has become a cover for modern-day antisemitism, a position that critics have challenged as a tactic to silence criticism of Israeli policies.
Opposition to a Jewish state has changed over time and has taken on a diverse spectrum of religious, ethical and political positions.
There is a long tradition of Jewish anti-Zionism that has opposed the Zionist project from its origins. The Bundists, the Autonomists, Reform Judaism and the Agude regarded both the rationale and territorial ambitions of Zionism as flawed. Orthodox Judaism, which grounds civic responsibilities and patriotic feelings in religion, was strongly opposed to Zionism because, though the two shared the same values, Zionism espoused nationalism in secular fashion, and used “Zion”, “Jerusalem,” “Land of Israel”, “redemption” and “ingathering of exiles” as literal rather than sacred terms, endeavouring to achieve them in this world. Orthodox Jews also opposed the creation of a Jewish state prior to the appearance of the messiah, as contradicting divine will. By contrast, reform Jews rejected Judaism as a national or ethnic identity, and renounced any messianic expectations of the advent of a Jewish state.
Other objections relate to the maintenance of a Jewish majority within the present state of Israel.
Post-Zionism a related term has been criticized as being equivalent to anti-Zionism.
The legitimacy of anti-Zionist views has been disputed to the present day, including the more recent and disputed relationship between anti-Zionism and antisemitism. Other views regarding the various forms of anti-Zionism have also been discussed and debated.
After some technical clarifications the Gemara presents collections of sayings illustrating attitudes to the Land of Israel. The first is dramatized as a conversation between Rav Yehuda bar Ezekiel and Rabbi Zeira, when the latter decided to emigrate from Babylonia to Israel; in its present literary form it expresses ongoing rivalries between two centres of Jewish life. Yos bar anina’s ‘three oaths’, including ‘that they shall not go up in military formation’, have frequently been cited by religious opponents to political Zionism; Zionists have been happier with the views of Rabbi Eleazar, a devoted advocate of the Land.
Hope for return to the land of Israel is embodied in the content of the Jewish religion (see Kibbutz Galuyot.) Aliyah, the Hebrew word meaning “ascending” or “going up”, is the word used to describe religious Jewish return to Israel, and has been used since ancient times. From the Middle Ages and onwards, many famous rabbis and often their followers returned to the land of Israel. These have included Nahmanides, Yechiel of Paris, Isaac Luria, Yosef Karo, Menachem Mendel of Vitebsk among others. For Jews in the Diaspora Eretz Israel was revered in a religious sense. They prayed, and thought of the return, as being fulfilled in a messianic age. Return remained a recurring theme for generations, particularly in Passover and Yom Kippur prayers which traditionally concluded with, “Next year in Jerusalem,” as well as the thrice-daily Amidah (Standing prayer).
Following Jewish Enlightenment however, Reform Judaism dropped many traditional beliefs, including aliyah, as incompatible with modern life within the Diaspora. Later, Zionism re-kindled the concept of aliyah in an ideological and political sense, parallel with traditional religious belief; it was used to increase Jewish population in the Holy Land by immigration and it remains a basic tenet of Zionist ideology. Support for aliyah does not always equal immigration however, as a majority of the world Jewish population remains within the Diaspora. Support for the modern Zionist movement is not universal and, as a result, some religious Jews as well as some secular Jews do not support Zionism. Non-Zionist Jews are not necessarily anti-Zionists, although some are. Generally however, Zionism does have the support of the majority of the Jewish religious organizations, with support from segments of the Orthodox movement, and most of the Conservative, and more recently, the Reform movement.
Many Hasidic rabbis oppose the creation of a Jewish state. The leader of the Satmar Hasidic group, Rabbi Joel Teitelbaum’s book, VaYoel Moshe, published in 1958, expounds one Orthodox position on Zionism, based on a literal form of midrash (biblical interpretation). Citing to Tractate Kesubos 111a of the Talmud Teitelbaum states that God and the Jewish people exchanged three oaths at the time of the Jews’ exile from ancient Israel, forbidding the Jewish people from massively immigrating to the Land of Israel, and from rebelling against the nations of the world.
In the early history of Zionism many traditional religious Jews opposed ideas of nationalism (Jewish or otherwise) which they regarded as a secular ideology, which some viewed as a violation of the Three Oaths. Key traditionalist opponents of Zionism included Isaac Breuer, Hillel Zeitlin, Aaron Shmuel Tamares, Elazar Shapiro (Muncatz), and Joel Teitelbaum, all waged ideological religious, as well as political, battles with Zionism each in their own way.
Most Orthodox religious groups have accepted and actively support the State of Israel, even if they have not adopted “Zionist” ideology. The World Agudath Israel party (founded in Poland) has at times participated in Israeli government coalitions. Most religious Zionists hold pro-Israel views from a right-wing viewpoint. The main exceptions are Hasidic groups such as Satmar Hasidim, which have about 100,000 adherents worldwide, as well as numerous different, smaller Hasidic groups, unified in America in the Central Rabbinical Congress of the United States and Canada and in Israel in the Edah HaChareidis.
The Jewish community is not a single united group and responses vary both between and within Jewish groups. One of the principal divisions is that between secular Jews and religious Jews. The reasons for secular opposition to the Zionist movement are very different from those of religious Jews.
Prior to the Second World War many Jews regarded Zionism as a fanciful and unrealistic movement. Many liberals during the European Enlightenment had argued that Jews should enjoy full equality only on the condition that they pledge their singular loyalty to their nation-state and entirely assimilate to the local national culture; they called for the “regeneration” of the Jewish people in exchange for rights. Those liberal Jews who accepted integration and/or assimilation principles saw Zionism as a threat to efforts to facilitate Jewish citizenship and equality within the European nation-state context.
The Jewish Anti-Zionist League, in Egypt, was a Communist-influenced anti-Zionist league in the years 19461947. In Israel, there are several Jewish anti-Zionist organisations and politicians, many of these are related to Matzpen.
Noam Chomsky has reported a change in the boundaries of what are considered Zionist and anti-Zionist views. In 1947, in his youth, Chomsky’s support for a socialist binational state, in conjunction with his opposition to any semblance of a theocratic system of governance in Israel, was at the time considered well within the mainstream of secular Zionism; today, it lands him solidly in the anti-Zionist camp.Ruth Wisse wrote of liberal American group J Street as evidence of an “anomalous pattern of internal defection” created as a result of anti-Zionism.
Alvin H. Rosenfeld in his much discussed essay, Progressive Jewish Thought and the New Anti-Semitism, claims that a “number of Jews, through their speaking and writing, are feeding a rise in virulent antisemitism by questioning whether Israel should even exist.” Rosenfeld’s general claims are:
Some Jewish organizations oppose Zionism as an integral part of their anti-imperialism. Some secular Jews today, particularly socialists and Marxists, continue to oppose the State of Israel on anti-imperialist and human rights grounds. Many oppose it as a form of nationalism, which they argue to be a product of capitalist societies. One secular anti-Zionist group today is the International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network, a socialist, anti-war, and anti-imperialist organization which calls for “the dismantling of Israeli apartheid, the return of Palestinian refugees, and the ending of the Israeli colonization of historic Palestine”.
Attitudes changed during and following the war. In May, 1942, before the full revelation of the Holocaust, the Biltmore Program proclaimed a fundamental departure from traditional Zionist policy of a “homeland” with its demand “that Palestine be established as a Jewish Commonwealth.” Opposition to official Zionisms firm, unequivocal stand caused some prominent Zionists to establish their own party, Ichud (Unification), which advocated an Arab Jewish Federation in Palestine. Opposition to the Biltmore Program also led to the founding of the anti-Zionist American Council for Judaism.
The full knowledge of the Holocaust altered the views of many who critiqued Zionism before 1948, including the British journalist Isaac Deutscher, a socialist and lifelong atheist who nevertheless emphasised the importance of his Jewish heritage. Before World War II, Deutscher opposed Zionism as economically retrograde and harmful to the cause of international socialism, but in the aftermath of the Holocaust he regretted his pre-war views, arguing for Israel’s establishment as a “historic necessity” to provide a refuge for the surviving Jews of Europe. In the 1960s, Deutscher renewed his criticism of Zionism, scrutinizing Israel for its failure to recognise the dispossession of the Palestinians.
David Novak writes that many Jewish anti-Zionists resent the way Zionism ‘mak(es) Jewishly unwarranted claims on them and other Jews. According to Jonathan Judaken, ‘numerous Jewish traditions have insisted that preservation of what is most precious about Judaism and Jewishness demands a principled anti-Zionism or post-Zionism.’ This tradition dwindled in the aftermath of the Holocaust, and the establishment of Israel but is still alive in religious groups such as Neturei Karta and among many intellectuals of Jewish background in both Israel and the diaspora, such as George Steiner, Tony Judt and Baruch Kimmerling .
A combination of revisionist history and group mentality maintains a significant Zionist consensus among Diaspora Jews we see Palestinians living in poverty, their families killed and their homes destroyed, and are told that this is because Hamas does not care for its own people, unlike Israel. […] While today a majority of observing Jews identify with the state of Israel, there is both a growing and visible minority of anti- and non-Zionist Jews, and a rich history of anti-Zionism within Judaism. Political movements like The Jewish Labour Bund and thinkers such as Abraham Serfaty, Emma Goldman and Leon Trotsky are often ignored or dismissed as “self-hating traitors”. In the UK today groups like Jews for Justice for Palestinians, Jewdas, Young Jewish Left and the International Jewish Anti-Zionist network are active voices against the occupation.
“Progressive Jewish Thought and the New Anti-Semitism,” an essay published by the American Jewish Committee, concludes that, with the maturing of Israel since its founding in 1948, the term anti-Zionism in scholarly work is often used to mean advocating the elimination of the State of Israel.Brian Klug of The Guardian has argued that anti-Zionism can represent fair opposition to the current political order in Israel.
Anti-Zionism in the Arab world emerged at the end of the 19th century, very soon after the First Zionist Congress was held in Basel in 1897. However, only after the Young Turk revolution in 1908 opposition to Zionism in Palestine and Greater Syria became widespread.
According to philosopher Michael Neumann, Zionism as an “expansionist threat” has caused Arab hostility toward Israel and even antisemitism. Anti-Zionist sentiment has increased with ongoing Arab Israeli conflicts: after the June 1967 Six-Day War where Israel gained control of the Sinai Peninsula, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights; during the 1982 Lebanon War where Israel Defense Forces invaded southern Lebanon, attacking the PLO, as well as Syria, leftist and Muslim Lebanese forces, leading to Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon; the 2002 Operation Defensive Shield in the West Bank, including the attack on the Jenin refugee camp; the 2006 Lebanon War; and the 20082009 IsraelGaza conflict.
Pan-Arabist narratives in the 1960s Nasser era emphasized the idea of Palestine as a part of the Arab world taken by others. In this narrative, the natural means of combating Zionism is Arab nations uniting and attacking Israel militarily.
In contrast, a poll of 507 Arab-Israelis conducted by the Israeli Democracy Institute in 2007 found that 75 percent profess support for Israel’s status as a Jewish and democratic state which guarantees equal rights for minorities. Israeli Arab support for a constitution in general was 88 percent.
Muslim anti-Zionism considers the State of Israel an intrusion into what many Muslims consider to be Dar al-Islam, a domain rightfully, and permanently, ruled only by Muslims due the fact it was historically conquered in the name of Islam.
Palestinian and other Muslim groups, as well as the government of Iran (since the 1979 Islamic Revolution), insist that the State of Israel is illegitimate and refuse to refer to it as “Israel,” instead using the locution “the Zionist entity” (see IranIsrael relations). Islamic maps of the Middle East frequently do not show the State of Israel. In an interview with Time Magazine in December 2006, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said “Everyone knows that the Zionist regime is a tool in the hands of the United States and British governments.”
The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem Mohammed Amin al Husseini opposed the Jewish immigration to Palestine before the creation of the State of Israel, and in several documented cases expressed his hostility toward Jews in general and Zionists in particular.
Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, whom the Anti-Defamation League named “the leading anti-Semite in America”, has a long track record of hostility towards Jews in general and Zionists in particular.
Palestinian Christian owned Falastin was founded in 1911 in the then Arab-majority city of Jaffa. The newspaper is often described as one of the most influential newspapers in historic Palestine, and probably the nation’s fiercest and most consistent critic of the Zionist movement. It helped shape Palestinian identity and nationalism and was shut down several times by the Ottoman and British authorities, most of the time due to complaints made by Zionists.
The World Council of Churches (WCC) has been described as taking anti-Zionist positions in connection with its criticisms of Israeli policy. It is claimed the council has focused disproportionately on activities and publications criticizing Israel in comparison with other human rights issues. The council members have been characterized by Israel’s former Justice minister Amnon Rubinstein as anti-Zionist, saying “they just hate Israel.” The WCC has been charged with prioritising Anti-Zionism to the extent it has neglected appeals from Egyptian Copts to raise their plight under Sadat and Mubarak in order to avoid distracting world attention.
After publishing “Zionism unsettled,” which it initially commended as “a valuable opportunity to explore the political ideology of Zionism,” the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) promptly withdrew the publication from sale on its website following criticism that it was Anti-Zionist, one critic claimed it posits that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is fueled by a ‘pathology inherent in Zionism.' In February 2016, the General Assembly was lobbied by its Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy (ACSWP) to lay aside a two state solution and support the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement. Presbyterians for Middle East Peace described this proposal as a “one-sided, zero-sum solution”.
In January 2015, the Lausanne movement, published an article in its official journal made comparisons between Christian Zionism, the crusades and the Spanish Inquisition and described Zionism as “apartheid on steroids”. The Simon Wiesenthal Center described this last claim as “the big lie,” and rebutted the “dismissal of the validity of Israels right to exist as the Jewish State”.
Despite its strong historic support for Restorationism, famously by Robert Murray M’Chyene and by both Horatius and Andrew Bonar, in April 2013 the Church of Scotland published “The Inheritance of Abraham: A Report on the Promised Land”, which rejected the idea of a special right of Jewish people to the Holy Land through analysis of scripture and Jewish theological claims. The report further denied the “belief among some Jewish people that they have a right to the land of Israel as a compensation for the suffering of the Holocaust” and argued that “it is a misuse of the Bible to use it as a topographic guide to settle contemporary conflicts over land.” The report was criticised by Jewish leaders in Scotland as “biased, weak on sources, and contradictory. The picture it paints of both Judaism and Israel is barely even a caricature.” Subsequently the Church issued a statement saying that the Church had not changed its “long held position of the rights of Israel to exist.” It also revised the report.
Charles and John Wesley, founders of the Methodist Church, held Restorationist views. Following the submission of a report entitled ‘Justice for Palestine and Israel’ in July 2010, the UK Methodist Conference questioned whether ‘Zionism was compatible with Methodist beliefs’. Christian Zionism was characterised as believing that Israel “must be held above criticism whatever policy is enacted,” and conference called for a boycott of selected Israeli goods “emanating from illegal settlements.” The UK’s Chief Rabbi described the report as “unbalanced, factually and historically flawed,” and said that it offered “no genuine understanding of one of the most complex conflicts in the world today. Many in both communities will be deeply disturbed.”
Anti-Zionism has a long history of being supported by various individuals and groups associated with Third Position, Right-wing and Fascist (or “Neo-Fascist”) political views. Whether it’s David Duke and the Ku Klux Klan, or lesser-known organizations like the Anti-Zionist League and various other Aryan / White-supremacist groups, Anti-Zionism (usually along with adamant Anti-Semitism) has been entrenched in a significant portion of those communities for years. Many of these groups’ Anti-Zionist views often revolve around the conspiracy theories discussed below (See: Anti-Zionist Conspiracy Theories).
During the last years of Stalin’s rule, official support for the creation of Israel in 1948 was replaced by strong anti-zionism. The level of confrontation with those deemed as anti-Soviet “Jewish nationalists” was toned down after Stalin’s death in 1953, but the official position of opposition to Zionism remained in force: the Anti-Zionist Committee of the Soviet Public, as well as numerous other initiatives, were state-sponsored.
As outlined in the third edition of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia (19691978), the Communist Party of the Soviet Union’s position during the Cold War became: “the main posits of modern Zionism are militant chauvinism, racism, anti-Communism and anti-Sovietism, […] overt and covert fight against freedom movements and the USSR.”
Anti-Zionist sentiments were also manifested in organisations such as the Organization for African Unity and the Non-Aligned Movement, which passed resolutions condemning Zionism and equating it with racism and apartheid during the early 1970s. This culminated in the passing by the United Nations General Assembly of Resolution 3379 in November 1975, which declared that “Zionism is a form of racism.”
The decision was revoked on 16 December 1991, when the General Assembly passed Resolution 4686, repealing resolution 3379, by a vote of 111 to 25, with 13 abstentions and 17 delegations absent. Thirteen out of the 19 Arab countries, including those engaged in negotiations with Israel, voted against the repeal, another six were absent. No Arab country voted for repeal. The Palestine Liberation Organisation denounced the vote. All of the ex-communist countries and most of the African countries who had supported Resolution 3379 voted to repeal it. Only four non-Muslim countries voted against the resolution: Cuba, Sri Lanka, North Korea and Vietnam. Likewise, only four Muslim countries voted for the resolution: Cote d’Ivoire, Albania, the Gambia and Nigeria. The rest abstained (including Turkey) or absented themselves.
After Israel occupied Palestinian territory following the 1967 Six-Day War, some African-Americans supported the Palestinians and criticized Israel’s actions, for example by publicly supporting Palestinian leader Yassir Arafat and calling for the destruction of the Jewish state. Immediately after the war, the black power organization Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee published a newsletter criticizing Israel, and asserting that the war was an effort to regain Palestinian land and that during the 1948 war, “Zionists conquered the Arab homes and land through terror, force, and massacres”. In 1993, philosopher Cornel West wrote: “Jews will not comprehend what the symbolic predicament and literal plight of Palestinians in Israel means to blacks…. Blacks often perceive the Jewish defense of the state of Israel as a second instance of naked group interest, and, again, an abandonment of substantive moral deliberation.” African-American support of Palestinians is frequently due to the consideration of Palestinians as people of color political scientist Andrew Hacker writes: “The presence of Israel in the Middle East is perceived as thwarting the rightful status of people of color. Some blacks view Israel as essentially a white and European power, supported from the outside, and occupying space that rightfully belongs to the original inhabitants of Palestine.”
A number of sources, such as French Prime Minister Manuel Valls, link anti-Zionism with antisemitism. Professor Kenneth L. Marcus, former staff director at the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, identifies four main views on the relationship between anti-Zionism and antisemitism, at least in North America:(p.845846) Marcus also states: “Unsurprisingly, recent research has shown a close correlation between anti-Israeli views and anti-Semitic views based on a survey of citizens in ten European countries.”
Critics such as Michael Neumann, Judith Butler and Steven Salaita challenge the equation of anti-Zionism and antisemitism as a tactic to silence criticism of Israeli policies.
Noam Chomsky argues that the premise of the claim assumes that Israel’s interests are Jewish interests, and thus any defender of Palestinian rights against a rejectionist Greater Israel is made out to be “objectively antisemitic”. This construal of anti-Zionism as antisemitic, he argues, is an old tactic, going back to Ben-Gurion’s remark in 1943, and evidenced after 1967 in a remark by Abba Eban in 1973, who stated: “one of the chief tasks of any dialogue with the Gentile world is to prove that the distinction between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism is not a distinction at all.”.
In response to a working draft Statement of Principles Against Intolerance at UCLA which contained the claim that ‘historic manifestations of antiSemitism have changed and that expressions of antiSemitism are more coded and difficult to identify’, that opposition to Zionism often asserts prejudice and intolerance towards Jews, and that ‘antiSemitism, antiZionism and other forms of discrimination have no place at the University of California,’ Rabbi Brant Rosen, an alumnus of UCLA replied that while some anti-Semites lurk behind the label of anti-Zionism, ‘it is incorrect and even disingenuous of the report to make the unsupported claim that anti-Zionism is often expressed (as) assertions of prejudice and intolerance toward Jewish people and culture, and blithely conflate anti-Semitism with anti-Zionism as a form of discrimination. .'
Tariq Ali, British-Pakistani historian
Tariq Ali, a British-Pakistani historian and political activist, argues that the concept of new antisemitism amounts to an attempt to subvert the language in the interests of the State of Israel. He writes that the campaign against “the supposed new ‘anti-semitism'” in modern Europe is a “cynical ploy on the part of the Israeli Government to seal off the Zionist state from any criticism of its regular and consistent brutality against the Palestinians… Criticism of Israel can not and should not be equated with anti-semitism.” He argues that most pro-Palestinian, anti-Zionist groups that emerged after the Six-Day War were careful to observe the distinction between anti-Zionism and antisemitism. Others go the other way and claim “anti-Zionism” has become a requisite proof of progressive conviction today, and is similar to Jews converting to Christianity a century ago.
According to Norman Finkelstein: “Every time Israel comes under international pressure, as it did recently because of the war crimes committed in Lebanon, it steps up the claim of anti-Semitism, and all of Israel’s critics are anti-Semitic.”
Finkelstein argues that anti-Zionism and often just criticism of Israeli policies have been conflated with antisemitism, sometimes called new antisemitism for political gain: “Whenever Israel faces a public relations dbcle such as the Intifada or international pressure to resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict, American Jewish organizations orchestrate this extravaganza called the ‘new anti-Semitism.’ The purpose is several-fold. First, it is to discredit any charges by claiming the person is an anti-Semite. It’s to turn Jews into the victims, so that the victims are not the Palestinians any longer. As people like Abraham Foxman of the ADL put it, the Jews are being threatened by a new holocaust. It’s a role reversal the Jews are now the victims, not the Palestinians. So it serves the function of discrediting the people leveling the charge. It’s no longer Israel that needs to leave the Occupied Territories; it’s the Arabs who need to free themselves of the anti-Semitism.”
Brian Klug argues that equating anti-Zionism to antisemitism poisoned the debate regarding Israel and their policies, stating,
“We should unite in rejecting racism in all its forms: the Islamophobia that demonises Muslims, as well as the anti-semitic discourse that can infect anti-Zionism and poison the political debate. However, people of goodwill can disagree politically – even to the extent of arguing over Israel’s future as a Jewish state. Equating anti-Zionism with anti-semitism can also, in its own way, poison the political debate.”
On January 15, 2004, Klug wrote:
Nonetheless, the inference is invalid. To argue that hostility to Israel and hostility to Jews are one and the same thing is to conflate the Jewish state with the Jewish people. In fact, Israel is one thing, Jewry another. Accordingly, anti-Zionism is one thing, anti-Semitism another. They are separate. To say they are separate is not to say that they are never connected. But they are independent variables that can be connected in different ways.
In the early 21st century, it was also claimed that a “new antisemitism” had emerged which was rooted in anti-Zionism. Advocates of this concept argue that much of what purports to be criticism of Israel and Zionism is demonization, and has led to an international resurgence of attacks on Jews and Jewish symbols and an increased acceptance of antisemitic beliefs in public discourse. Critics of the concept as Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein, Michael Marder, and Tariq Ali have suggested that the characterization of anti-Zionism as antisemitic is inaccurate, sometimes obscures legitimate criticism of Israel’s policies and actions and trivializes antisemitism.
David Cameron, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom
According to David Cameron, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, “there has been an insidious, creeping attempt to delegitimize the state of Israel, which spills over often into anti-Semitism.”
Joschka Fischer, German Foreign Minister
In July 2001, the Simon Wiesenthal Center reported that during a visit there, German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer stated that “anti-Zionism inevitably leads to antisemitism.”  In 2015, the Center observed in a newsletter introducing its report on North American campus life, that ‘virulent anti-Zionism is often a thinly-veiled disguise for virulent anti-Semitism’.
Robert S. Wistrich, Israeli professor
Professor Robert S. Wistrich, head of the Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Antisemitism at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, is the originator of Marcus’s second view of anti-Zionism (that anti-Zionism and antisemitism merged post-1948) argues that much contemporary anti-Zionism, particularly forms that compare Zionism and Jews with Hitler and the Third Reich, has become a form of antisemitism:
Anti-Zionism has become the most dangerous and effective form of anti-Semitism in our time, through its systematic delegitimization, defamation, and demonization of Israel. Although not a priori anti-Semitic, the calls to dismantle the Jewish state, whether they come from Muslims, the Left, or the radical Right, increasingly rely on an anti-Semitic stereotypization of classic themes, such as the manipulative “Jewish lobby,” the Jewish/Zionist “world conspiracy,” and Jewish/Israeli “warmongers.”
Ben-Dror Yemini, Israeli journalist
Israeli journalist Ben-Dror Yemini maintains that anti-Zionism is “politically correct antisemitism” and argues that the same way Jews were demonized, Israel is demonized, the same way the right of Jews to exist was denied, the right for Self-determination is denied from Israel, the same way Jews were presented as a menace to the world, Israel is presented as a menace to the world.
In the 2015, a German court in Essen ruled that anti-Zionism and antisemitism were equivalent. “‘Zionist in the language of anti-Semites is a code for Jew,” Judge Gauri Sastry said in a groundbreaking legal decision. Taylan Can, a German citizen of Turkish origin, yelled “death and hate to Zionists” at an anti-Israel rally in Essen in July 2014, and was convicted for hate crime. In contrast, in February 2015, a court in Wuppertal convicted two German Palestinians of an arson attack on a synagogue, but denied that the crime was motivated by antisemitism.
Dina Porat, head of ISAR
Dina Porat (head of the Institute for Study of Antisemitism and Racism at Tel-Aviv University) contends that anti-Zionism is antisemitic because it is discriminatory:
…antisemitism is involved when the belief is articulated that of all the peoples on the globe (including the Palestinians), only the Jews should not have the right to self-determination in a land of their own. Or, to quote noted human rights lawyer David Matas: One form of antisemitism denies access of Jews to goods and services because they are Jewish. Another form of antisemitism denies the right of the Jewish people to exist as a people because they are Jewish. Antizionists distinguish between the two, claiming the first is antisemitism, but the second is not. To the antizionist, the Jew can exist as an individual as long as Jews do not exist as a people.
Liel Leibovitz, Israeli American journalist
Israeli American journalist Liel Leibovitz says that 21st century “anti-Zionists” do not like Jews whether they live in Israel or anywhere else in the world. He cites the example of the “anti-Zionist” professor at Oberlin who posted antisemitic conspiracy theories on her website and the “anti-Zionist” Stanford University student who claimed that many of the classical antisemitic conspiracy theories are not antisemitic.
The antisemitic hoax The Protocols of the Elders of Zion came to be used among Arab anti-Zionists, although some Arab anti-Zionists have tried to discourage its usage.: 186: 357 Antisemitic sources have claimed that The Protocols of the Elders of Zion were read at the First Zionist Congress. Neil J. Kressel asserts that for many years the line between antisemitism and anti-Zionism has been blurry.: 102
A number of conspiracies involving the Holocaust have been advanced. One advanced by the Soviets in the 1950s claims that Nazis and Zionists had a shared interest or even cooperated in the extermination of Europe’s Jewry, as persecution would force them to flee to Palestine, then under British administration.: 237 Claims also have been made that the Zionist movement inflated or faked the impact of the Holocaust.: 2122 The President of the State of Palestine Mahmoud Abbas wrote in his 1983 book, “The Other Side: The Secret Relationship Between Nazism and Zionism” based on his CandSc thesis completed in 1982 at the Moscow Institute of Oriental Studies, with Yevgeny Primakov as thesis advisor.
In 1968, the East German communist paper Neues Deutschland justified the Warsaw Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia with the headline “In Prague Zionism is in power”. In 1995, William Korey released a work entitled Russian antisemitism, Pamyat, and the demonology of Zionism. Korey’s central argument is that the Soviet Union promoted an “official Judeophobic propaganda campaign” under the guise of anti-Zionism from 1967 to 1986; after this program was shut down by Mikhail Gorbachev, a populist and chauvinist group called Pamyat emerged in the more open climate of Glasnost to promote an openly anti-Semitic message. Korey also argues that much official late-period Soviet anti-Semitism may be traced back to the influence of Protocols of the Elders of Zion. He notes, for instance, that a 1977 Soviet work entitled International Zionism: History and Politics contains the allegation that most major Wall Street financial institutions are “large financial-industrial Jewish monopolies” exercising control over many countries in the world.Russian antisemitism was reviewed by Robert O. Freedman in the Slavic Review; while he concurs with the book’s central thesis, Freedman nevertheless writes that the actual extent of Soviet anti-Semitism may have been less than Korey suggests.
Accusations have been made regarding Zionism and the 2003 invasion of Iraq, claiming that prominent Zionists were forcing Western governments into war in the Middle East for Israel’s interests.
The Sudanese government has alleged that the Darfur uprising (in which some 500,000 have been killed) is part of a wider Zionist conspiracy.Egyptian media have alleged that the Zionist movement deliberately spreads HIV in Egypt.
According to the Anti-Defamation League, Neo-Nazi and radical Muslim groups allege the US government is controlled by Jews, describing it as the “Zionist Occupation Government”.
Article 22 of the 1988 Hamas charter claims that the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, colonialism and both world wars were created by the Zionists or forces supportive of Zionism. Article 32 alleges that the Zionist movement seeks to create an Empire stretching from the Nile in Egypt to the Euphrates river in Iraq.
In April 2010, Abd Al-Azim Al-Maghrabi, the Deputy Head of Egyptian Arab Lawyers Union, stated in an interview with Al-Manar TV (as translated by MEMRI) that the Hepatitis C virus was produced by “the Zionists” and that “this virus is now spreading in Egypt like wildfire.” He also called for it to be “classified as one of the war crimes perpetrated by the Zionist enemy.”
In June 2010, Egyptian cleric Mus’id Anwar gave a speech which aired on Al-Rahma TV (as translated by MEMRI) in which he alleged that the game of soccer (as well as swimming, bullfighting and tennis) was in fact a Zionist conspiracy, stating that:
As you know, the Jews, or the Zionists, have The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Over 100 years ago, they formulated a plan to rule the world, and they are implementing this plan. One of the protocols says: “Keep the [non-Jews] preoccupied with songs, soccer, and movies.” Is it or isn’t it happening? It is […] the Zionists manage to generate animosity among Muslims, and even between Muslim countries, by means of soccer.
“what was then called ‘Zionist’….are now called ‘anti-Zionist’ (concerns and views).”
“I was interested in socialist, binationalist options for Palestine, and in the kibbutzim and the whole cooperative labor system that had developed in the Jewish settlement there (the Yishuv)…The vague ideas I had at the time  were to go to Palestine, perhaps to a kibbutz, to try to become involved in efforts at Arab-Jewish cooperation within a socialist framework, opposed to the deeply antidemocratic concept of a Jewish state.”
Works related to Zionism at Wikisource