The term “anti-Zionism” is used frequently in contemporary discourse about Israel. However, it is almost never defined, not even in in-depth discussions and presentations and not even in relation to the equally ambiguous term “Zionism.”

In a striking example, a lengthy presentation of the diverse views of American Jews, many critical of Israel, was recently published in the New Yorker. The author mentions “anti-Zionism” sixteen times without ever stating what he (or his interviewees) means by the term. It seems to include the views of some who oppose Israeli policy; it also seems to include the views of some who oppose the existence of the State of Israel. Perhaps the closest he gets is the recognition that anti-Zionism might mean multiple things: “Some Jews have gone further [than critiquing Israeli policies], condemning Israel as an illiberal ‘ethno-state’ that oppresses Palestinians and should be abolished in its current form.” Though obviously aware of these different positions, the author says nothing about the vastly different outcomes they might lead to, treating them simply as multiple options with seemingly equivalent moral weight.

This article is just one example of a widespread ambiguity in contemporary discourse. This is stunning given the frequent use of the term anti-Zionism to refer to a range of often contrasting views with profound, even life-or-death implications. In light of this ambiguity, there is a serious need for clarity, both terminologically and morally, in usage of this term. I want to suggest a model we can use to consider two versions of anti-Zionism (while acknowledging that many peoples’ views are not so tidily categorizable). The first is “policy anti-Zionism,” referring to opposition to the policies of the State of Israel. The second is “existential anti-Zionism,” referring to opposition to the creation and existence of the State of Israel. The difference between these two terms could not be more significant, and yet there is almost never any effort made to clarify which meaning someone (supposedly) has in mind. That this clarification is necessary is surprising, for the stakes—about a country and its policies, and the lives of its citizens—are immense. That many use the term anti-Zionism without explaining their views regarding these stakes is troubling.

I want to grapple with the meanings of the term anti-Zionism because of the assumed reasonability of existential anti-Zionism apparent in some critical discussions of the founding and the policies of Israel. There is no other state whose continuing existence is widely treated as open for debate. Only Israel is subject to a disturbing dichotomy: does the state’s contested creation and / or flawed policies justify a critique of its policies or of its existence? (A rough illustration of this claim is found in the Wikipedia entry on “Right to Exist.” While it surveys seven countries—including totalitarian North Korea—the section on Israel alone takes up 70% of the entire entry. Also, a recent survey found that only 52% of 18–29-year-olds believe Israel has a right to exist.) A contrast is revealing.

Other states have emerged out of war, violence, and injustice and implement bad policies, and yet no one proposes that they should cease to exist. Though some countries at their creation or subsequently committed large-scale murderous violence, the political unit is almost universally treated as sacrosanct. For example, there were not and are not demands for the abolition of China, North Korea, or even western countries such as Britain because they emerged from military conflict, seized territory through war, and often brutally repressed........

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)