At our institution — Case Western Reserve University — the calls for student activism hardly amounted to a rumble until last academic year, when anti-Israel posters, graffiti, angry chants, walk-outs and an encampment overtook our campus. Now, “Zionist” and “Zionism” are suddenly heard and seen everywhere, not only here in Cleveland, but on campuses across North America, where the angry slogans “Zionists not allowed,” “Zionists are not humans” and “Death to Zionism” have rung out.
Protesters at Concordia University in Montreal were heard chanting, “All Zionists are racists, all Zionists are terrorists.” In a video that went viral, a Columbia University student leader taped his own murderous rant in which he said, “Zionists don’t deserve to live.” The university’s most prominent pro-Palestinian student group recently rescinded its apology.
Pushing back against this noxious rhetoric, some Jewish students have doubled down on owning the terms. Rather than standing by as protesters appropriate and violate their understanding of what “Zionist” means, they proudly claim it as an identity marker. A statement issued by 540 Columbia university students last spring, which was posted on social media and then reprinted in the New York Times, offers the most prominent example. They proclaimed, “We are proud to be Jews, and we are proud to be Zionists,” defining Zionism as the “Jewish People’s right to self-determination in our historic homeland” and claiming it as “a fundamental tenet of our Jewish identity.”
In this tug of war between those who denigrate the label and those who honor it, we say that it is time to reconsider the place of “Zionist” and “Zionism” in our discourse. We believe the terms have simply run their course.
Others have similarly contended that the terms have such widely varying meanings that having a shared discussion about them can be rendered impossible. Here, we invite conversation about the possibility of shelving this language, relegating its use solely to its proper historical context.
The origins of the word 'Zionism'
To explain, let’s begin with a brief review of the terms’ origins. Used as a poetic reference to Jerusalem and by extension the Land of Israel, the term “Zion” appears in the Hebrew Bible 152 times. “By the rivers of Babylon,” begins the renowned Psalm 137, “we sat down there and wept as we remembered Zion.” Later, after the Romans destroyed the Second Temple in 70 CE, Jews were dispersed across the globe, always a minority, often spurned, their fate subject to the whims of foreign rulers. Jews continued to express a longing for Zion in prayer, beseeching God, “Gather together our scattered people from the ends of the earth. Return us all in joy to your city Zion.”
For generations, this liturgical cry was mostly a messianic dream. But in the 19th century, as new nationalist movements emerged in Europe and across the crumbling Ottoman Empire, Zionism took shape. The vision called for Jewish autonomy in the Jews’ ancient homeland. With the organization of the First Zionist Congress in Basel, Switzerland in 1897, the movement was seeded, and the term “Zionism” came into common usage as the political, cultural and military work to achieve statehood played out. The Zionist dream, of course, became a reality in May of 1948, with the establishment of the state of Israel.
Seventy-six years have passed since then. Israel is now a state with a strong economy, a flourishing culture and a powerful army. While the country’s domestic and international challenges are particularly acute today, they are the sorts of trials that come with statehood, particularly in a troubled and unstable region of the world. Yet by continuing to use the terms “Zionist” and “Zionism” we undermine Israel’s normalization. The country is home to almost 10 million citizens with diverse religious and ethnic backgrounds and a wide range of political views. One need not be a “Zionist” to support Israel. You need only believe that Israelis have the right — like all others — to live their lives in security and prosperity.
In addition to this logical reason for shelving the words “Zionist” and “Zionism,” we believe this linguistic choice is prudent.
First, applying the terms to modern day Israel is confusing and unclear, and it creates opportunities for distortion. The Anti-Defamation League defines Zionism as the “movement for self-determination and statehood for the Jewish people in their ancestral homeland.” But this definition makes little sense today given that statehood has long ago been achieved. It argues for the legitimacy of a country whose status should no longer be called into question. Because it has no clear meaning in the contemporary context, many feel free to appropriate it and assign it pernicious meanings. The anti-Zionist Jewish Voice for Peace describes “Zionism” as a movement “to deny the rights of Palestinians and the humanity of Palestinians.” The BDS Movement characterizes it as a settler colonial project which is ongoing and in which every Israeli citizen is complicit. Even the United Nations defined Zionism as “a form of racism and racial discrimination” (though it later revoked this definition).
We should insist on the correct meaning of the terms. “Zionism” and “Zionist” refer to a narrow historical movement and ought not be open to interpretation or appropriation.
Second, the word “Zionist” provides detractors a substitute for directly referencing the state of Israel. In effect, this verbal evasion denies the state’s very existence. Iran uses the term “Zionist regime,” and Hamas favors “Zionist Entity.” Few contemporary nation states face this type of repudiation, even those that have been called out for their extreme humanitarian injustices and political missteps. For its fiercest critics, Israel becomes an “ism” to be eliminated — like racism or sexism — and not an actual country with which to reckon.
Third, haters feel empowered to hurl labels and insults at Jews while self-righteously defending their conduct. People who might think twice before publicly pronouncing “Jews do not deserve to live” or “Death to Israel” freely express these same sentiments by simply substituting “Zionist” for “Jew” and “Zionism” for “Israel.” Then feigning innocence, they claim to have simply expressed opposition to a political philosophy and those who adhere to it.
Does dropping the use of “Zionism” concede the war of words to Israel’s critics? Does it imply a surrender of part of our heritage? No, in fact, doing so would only reaffirm Israel’s legitimacy. There are plenty of terms other than “Zionist” that are more accurate and appropriate for the 21st century. These include “Israeli citizens” as well as “supporters,” “defenders” and — yes — “critics” of Israel.
“Zionist” and “Zionism” should continue to be used to refer to the movement that predated the establishment of Israel in 1948. But perhaps, in all but historical contexts, these terms should be retired from our vocabulary. This linguistic turn could be one small step towards restoring civility on university campuses and beyond.