We are in the midst of a large-scale assault on the Jewish nation. Like previous large-scale assaults, the attack is being funneled through the most relevant aspect of Judaism at the time. In our era, it is Zionism that has become the anchor of Judaism.
Zionism is not the cause of the assault on the Jewish nation. It is the vehicle through which age-old opposition to Judaism is now carried.
More dangerously, the anti-Zionism ideology is expanding beyond Zionism and Israel. Anti-Zionists keep their expansion plans no secret: Right next to the banners “From the river to the sea” are the banners “Globalize the intifada.”
In the last two months alone, the anti-Zionist movement has triggered a series of “global” conversations that have nothing to do with Zionism or Israel, ranging from Muslims’ rights in Europe to the possible end of the concept of universities. Anti-Zionists even reversed a century of progress for women’s rights by placing some degree of “context” on the action of rape.
The Gaza war gave the anti-Zionism movement momentum, structure, funding, and legitimacy from credible media and politicians. That credibility has been deployed to the “globalization arm,” and from there one can do the simple math of what could come next: “From the Atlantic to the Black Sea, Eurostan will be free.”
Last summer’s riots in France, which resulted in over 5,000 cars burned and 1,000 buildings damaged, did not “happen in a vacuum,” to use UN Secretary-General António Guterres’s terminology about Hamas’s action. Indeed, the October 7 massacre raised fears of similar attacks in Europe.
As discussed in a previous Magazine article (“That night in Basel,” September 24, 2022), the lethal component of Western anti-Zionism does not come from the aggressive Israel-bashers in demonstrations but from the polite Israel-bashers-light in positions of power.
(While the common term is “anti-Zionism,” the more precise term used in my analyses over the last decade has been “Israel-bashing.” By now, those two terms can be used interchangeably.)
TAKE THE case of Spain. Generations of Spaniards have been taught about the “Reconquista,” the process of kicking out Spain’s Muslim invaders who inhabited Spain for 800 years.
It is due to the mainstreaming of anti-Zionism that this narrative now gets challenged. There is no “re” in the conquest of Spain, so the argument goes.
If one gives legitimacy to the term “Reconquista,” based on a questionable theory that the people who completed the conquest of Spain in the 15th century were somehow related to the people who lived there 800 years ago, then one gives legitimacy to Zionism, which represents a much more historically sound story about a nation coming back.
In other words, one can only be anti-Zionist if one is anti-Spanish.
Moreover, unlike in Zionism, in the Spanish case there was a complete displacement of the Muslim population from Spain. That is why there is an active conflict in Israel and not one in Spain. Spaniards live in peace today, thanks to the war crimes of Ferdinand and Isabella. Israelis do not live in peace because they refused to commit the atrocities Europeans have been committing for centuries.
Add to that other unresolved conflicts in Spain, such as Basque and Catalonian’s quest for independence, and suddenly, the anti-Zionist movement triggered the “Spanish Question,” which remained dormant for over 500 years.
Indeed, for years, members of the so-called conflict-industry (employees of the UN, EU, and NGOs in Jerusalem) have joked that the two-state solution is merely a laboratory experiment for such a construct in Europe.
Now that the two-state solution has been reincarnated, one must wonder whether it should be considered in Europe in order to de-escalate mounting tensions with its Muslim population and accommodate new realities on the ground. Is it time for Europe to concede that they are no longer in the 1970s? Residents of Malmo, Sweden, are not listening to ABBA, and the people of Luton, England, are not watching Benny Hill. Did the Israel-bashing and anti-Zionist ideology also awaken the “Europe Question”?
STATING THE obvious, anti-Zionism is not pro-Palestinian. “Ceasefire now” – the third banner of the Israel-bashing movement next to “From the river to the sea” and “Globalize the intifada” – is anti-Zionists imposing on Gazans the rule of Hamas. This, along with blocking Palestinians’ employment in Jewish-owned businesses, is just an example of why anti-Zionism is, at its core, a colonialist movement housing elements of European supremacism.
Ceasefire does not only mean more October 7s but also more Israeli retaliation against Hamas and, inevitably, more humanitarian crises in Gaza.
Let’s be clear: Hamas is the one responsible for the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, but secondary culprits are the United Nations, the media, and those pressuring Israel to refrain from destroying Hamas in previous rounds and now.
And still, shockingly, 13 out of the 15 members of the UN Security Council voted to force Israel to stop its counteroffensive. This is akin to those countries voting to stop the Allies’ counteroffensive against Germany in World War II and prolonging the Holocaust (“Six million were not enough”).
Anti-Zionism destabilizes global stability and is a threat to the survival of Judaism, but it has an Achilles heel.
Addressing anti-Zionism: Conflict management
The contemporary assault on the Jewish nation is perpetrated with a sword and a shield. The sword is anti-Zionism and Israel-bashing, the shield is Judaism 2.0 – the notion that Judaism is merely a religion – and hence one can advocate zero tolerance to traditional antisemitism (the existential threat to Judaism in the 20th century) while actively engaging in anti-Zionism (the existential threat to Judaism in the 21st century).
Once there is a paradigm shift – a broad global recognition that Judaism has transformed and Zionism is now its anchor (Judaism 3.0) – that shield gets decimated, and the anti-Zionism threat gets reduced.
After all, the Jewish state was born through such a paradigm shift: Theodor Herzl defied the conventional wisdom that Jew-hatred was ending, since Europeans of the 1890s were no longer religious. He concluded that European opposition to Judaism would evolve based on changing Jewish and European circumstances. A Jewish state would be a suitable construct to manage such opposition to Judaism. (“Conflict management,” not “conflict resolution”.)
Herzl understood that the nascent antisemitic ideology of his time was a natural reaction to the thriving of emancipated Jews in Europe in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
Similarly, today’s anti-Zionism ideology is a natural reaction to the thriving of Zionism and the State of Israel in the 21st century.
But antisemitism (a new term used in Herzl’s time to describe this new form of Jew-hatred) did not just affect the Jews. It was the primary strategic threat to the French Republic, as expressed in the Dreyfus Affair.
Antisemitism was a national security threat to Europe
As patriotic Jews rose up the ranks of the French military, a Jewish officer, Alfred Dreyfus, was framed in 1894 for spying for Germany. He was convicted and exiled to Devil’s Island.
Years later, once it became evident that he was innocent, French society became dangerously torn between two polar camps: the Dreyfusards and the anti-Dreyfuses.
This was no longer about the underlying question of was Dreyfus guilty? This question was as irrelevant as the question of whether Israel bombed a hospital in Gaza. The Dreyfus Affair was a referendum about Jews in France and, by extension, in Europe.
This is just as anti-Zionism today is a referendum about the Jews – in America, in Europe, and in Israel.
Back then, popular media such as La Libra Parole (“free speech”) were instrumental in the campaign against Dreyfus and the Jewish nation, who were accused of polluting humanity. Today, popular media, such as the BBC and The New York Times, are instrumental in the ideological campaign against Zionism and the Jewish nation, who once again are accused of committing crimes against humanity.
Therefore, it is no surprise – then and now – that when someone rose up to protect humanity from the Jews, there was broad receptivity.
The Nazis could not have succeeded without the collaboration of the French and other Europeans, indoctrinated by the antisemitism ideology.
Similarly, the modern-day Nazis – Hamas – could not succeed without the collaboration of de facto partners in the media and the UN, which indoctrinate the world with Israel-bashing ideology, which in turn puts public pressure on Israel to stop its operation and deliver Hamas the victory.
Twentieth-century antisemitism to Nazis is what 21st-century anti-Zionism is to Hamas: an independent, uncoordinated ideological assault on the Jews, which is an enabler for the physical assault on the Jews and a primary destabilizer of global security.
And yet, anti-Zionism is viewed in the context of antisemitism. This is akin to Israeli wines, now winning top awards in international competitions, being shelved in wine stores under “Kosher.” (Yes, they are kosher, but that’s not the point.)
Anti-Zionism is a national security threat to the United States
Anti-Zionism needs to be reclassified as a national security issue – a strategic threat to the US and to global stability. Therefore, President Biden should consider appointing an anti-Zionism director to the National Security Council.
When Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau accused the Jewish state of the “killing of women, of children, of babies,” he fueled the anti-Zionist movement and hence contributed to the range of global destabilizing events described above.
The US must act by, for example, reprimanding the Canadian ambassador. This way, other world leaders would be deterred from succumbing to their indoctrinated populace.
Indeed, the Spanish prime minister, in a reminder to Americans to “remember the Maine,” attacked sacred American values by slandering Jews in Israel, accusing them of indiscriminately killing thousands of Palestinian boys and girls.
“America is an idea.” That was what President Biden stated when he announced his run for president in 2019. This idea is now being attacked through the construct of anti-Zionism.
“Anti-Zionism” is a euphemism for “anti-Americanism.” America was founded as a rejection of the oppressive dogmas of the European past, the renewal of an ancient promise, a utopian return to freedom. From the onset, Americanism was a form of abstract Zionism.
Biden also stated that he was prompted to run for president by mobs in Charlottesville, Virginia, “chanting the same vile [statement] heard across Europe in the 1930s: ‘Jews will not replace us.’”
Those chants have since traveled from Charlottesville to college campuses in America and to public squares across Europe.
The murder, rape, and beheading of Jews in their own homes, along with the backwind it gets from the anti-Zionism movement, is the ultimate expression of “Jews will not replace us,” in defiance of the essence of Americanism.
Biden is now president and leader of the free world. His courageous support for Israel, defending itself and the world from the physical threat of Hamas, is admirable. Now it is time to defend America and the free world from this mushrooming ideological threat of anti-Zionism.
The writer is author of Judaism 3.0: Judaism’s Transformation to Zionism (Judaism-Zionism.com) and chairman of the Judaism 3.0 think tank. For his geopolitical articles, visit EuropeAndJerusalem.com