Anti-Zionism: The Fancy Hat That Jew-Hatred Wears to Dinner

Applying a little goose and ganderism to the pretentions of the anti-Zionists.

If you believe in the importance of free speech, subscribe to support uncensored, fearless writing—the more people who pay, the more time I can devote to this. Free speech matters. I am a university professor suspended because of a free speech issue, so I am not speaking from the bleachers.

Please subscribe to receive at least three pieces /essays per week with open comments. It’s $6 per month, less than USD 4. Everyone says, “Hey, it’s just a cup of coffee.” (With me, it's not per day but just one per month.) But if you’re like me, you go, “Hey, I only want so many cups of coffee!” I get it.

If you subscribe to the free plan, you will receive one free (non-paywalled) article every two weeks on the weekend.

But I only ask that when you choose your coffee, please choose mine. Cheers.

---

Anti-Zionism: The Fancy Hat That Jew-Hatred Wears to Dinner

Anti-Zionism as a search term is trending; according to Google Trends, it is more than four times as popular as it was four years ago. So, let’s examine if this position can stand alone without leaning on its (perhaps conjoined, but I don’t want to give away the ending) twin.

So, assuming what is good for the goose is good for the gander is a fair way of examining questions.

What should we do with our goose and gander examination?

We take the criteria for criticism, reapply it in other settings and see if the moral reaction is similar.

If the answer is yes, it’s principled; if it’s no, it’s prejudice masquerading as principle.

Unless we get into the concept of the racism of high or low expectations in which we say, no, Israel, we aren’t hard on you out of prejudice; it’s just that we have high expectations for you, and we have given up on those other folks.

My parents said that to my brother.

But we will leave that alone for now.

Anti-Zionism is a term that, when uttered in polite society, is often followed by a self-righteous insistence that it has absolutely nothing to do with anti-Semitism. No, of course not. It’s merely a principled objection to Jewish nationalism—an objection that, for some reason, doesn’t seem to extend to any other national movement on earth.

But what does it mean to be anti-Zionist? If Zionism is the belief that the Jewish people deserve a homeland in their historical and religious birthplace, then anti-Zionism must, by definition, reject this notion. Does that mean anti-Zionists believe that the seven million Jews in Israel should pack their bags and politely hand over their homes to the Arab nations that have spent the last century trying (and repeatedly failing) to annihilate them?

We are assuming the two million Arabs in Israel could stick around. However, some Palestinian Arabs view them as collaborators and might want to put them on the express train to Allah, Jesus or Yahweh.

Are anti-Zionists against the very existence of a Jewish homeland, or are they simply objecting to the specific circumstances of its formation?

1. The Selective Moral Outrage of Anti-Zionists

First, an obvious question: If the real issue is that Israel is a state founded based on ethnicity and religion, surely anti-Zionists must also object to the dozens of other countries that fit this bill.

Saudi Arabia, for example, is explicitly a Muslim state where non-Muslims cannot practice their faith openly. Pakistan was carved out of India specifically to be a Muslim homeland. Greece and Armenia are deeply tied to Orthodox Christianity, and Japan has strict immigration policies that ensure the country remains overwhelmingly ethnically Japanese.

Where are the impassioned protests against these nations? Where are the calls for their “dismantling” or “decolonisation”?

Ah, but Israel is different, they say. Why? Because it was formed in 1948 after a UN partition? Because Jews were given land that was already occupied? Well, let’s address that particular piece of revisionist history next.

2. Land, War, and the Art of Losing with Dignity (or Lack Thereof)

A favourite anti-Zionist talking point is that Israel is an illegitimate state because it was “stolen” from the Palestinians. This is a fascinating claim because, if one looks at historical precedent, there are precisely zero examples in the last two centuries of a country winning a war and then handing all the land back.

• The United States fought Mexico from 1846 to 1848 and took Texas, California, and much of the modern Southwest. Did they give it back? Of course not.

• Germany invaded France in 1870, and then France took Alsace-Lorraine back in 1918. Did the French wring their hands about “decolonizing” it? Not a chance.

• Russia took Crimea in 2014, and while the West issued sternly worded letters, that was about the extent of it.

Israel, however, is the only country in history expected to win wars and still behave as if it lost.

When Israel declared independence in 1948, five Arab nations immediately invaded, with the explicit goal of eradicating the Jewish state. They lost. Then, they tried again in 1967. And again in 1973. Every time they lost, they demanded Israel return land that they had used as a launching pad to exterminate Jews. It’s like playing video games against the most annoying person on earth.

Israel is the first country in history where the world demands that it give its victories away for free. Is this an Israel thing? Tell me.

When Jews play poker with Gentiles, is this still the rule, or does it only apply to war?

I don’t know; I have only ever lost at poker. When I play, we don’t tend to force everyone to identify ethnicity, religion, or race before opening the chips and spilling the beer on the folding table. Maybe it is a thing, but I doubt it.

3. How Much Land Was Actually “Palestinian” in 1948?

Another falsehood often parroted by the anti-Zionist brigade is that Israel was built on land stolen from Palestinian families. In reality, before 1948:

• Much of the land was purchased legally by Jewish organisations from Arab landowners who were more than happy to sell land they deemed worthless swampland.

• The rest was British Mandate territory or previously Ottoman land—not private Palestinian property.

The total of land that Palestinians legally owned and were forcibly removed from in 1948? A statistically insignificant fraction.

4. The Two-State Solution: A Western Fantasy

Western progressives love to talk about the two-state solution, imagining a utopia where Jews and Palestinians hold hands and sing John Lennon’s Imagine or perhaps some insipid hip-hop piece by Drake that sounds like everything he has ever released. And yes, Drake is Jewish, but his Jewishness is not a major theme in his music.

Mostly, Drake mumbles through sad-boy iterations, ready for Instagram lamentations and endless indulgences in self-pity, trust issues, and flexing through tears, not to mention the ever-popular moping with money, shpiel with plenty of shtick.

But I digress. Apologies.

The problem with the two-state solution? The overwhelming majority of Palestinians themselves reject it.

Polls from the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research repeatedly show that most Palestinians do not merely want a state alongside Israel; they want Israel erased. If Israel were full of Norwegians who were atheists or Lutherans, there wouldn’t be a problem.

The most popular political movement among Palestinians remains Hamas—a terrorist group whose charter explicitly calls for the elimination of Israel. Not exactly the best negotiating partner. But the Houthis are good, oh, never mind, their charter says, “Curse the Jews.”

If the Palestinian grievance were truly about statehood, they could have had it multiple times:

• In 1947, when the UN partition plan offered them a state. They rejected it.

• In 2000, Ehud Barak offered them over 90% of the West Bank and all of Gaza.

They rejected it.

• In 2008, when Ehud Olmert made an even more generous offer. Again, rejected.

Because the truth is, the issue has never been about Palestinians having a state. It has always been about them not having to live next to a Jewish one.

5. The October 7th Attack: What Was Israel Supposed to Do?

Following Hamas’s horrific massacre of Israeli civilians on October 7th, 2023, anti-Zionists immediately lined up to condemn… Israel.

Why?

Because its military response was “disproportionate.”

This raises a question: Can anyone name a country in history that was invaded, had its civilians massacred, and then responded with a brief symbolic strike and a heartfelt apology for fighting back?

Let’s remember the number of Israeli citizens killed was equivalent to troops from Detroit killing 5600 Canadians or troops from Canada going into Michigan and killing 46000 innocents. Okay we are also pretending Canada has a real army.

It's hard to see Canada or the US showing much restraint and immediately breaking out the pretzels and Red Bull for an emergency proportionality analysis.

Should the UK have called it a day after one bombing raid on Berlin?

Should the US have lobbed a few missiles at Japan and then sat down for tea? No.

Wars are fought until the enemy loses the will and the means to continue attacking.

That is how every war in human history has worked. But not when the enemy is Hamas and the nation defending itself is Israel. Israel is supposed just to say, well, Hamas, we know you said you intend to keep doing Oct. 7-type raids forever till we are all dead, but no matter, we will let you stick around.

No biggie.

And let’s talk about civilian casualties. Every major urban war in history—from Stalingrad to Fallujah—has resulted in massive civilian death tolls. The idea that Israel, uniquely, must somehow fight a war in which only Hamas terrorists die is not just absurd; it is impossible.

The only reason Palestinian civilians are caught in the crossfire is because Hamas deliberately embeds itself among them. It stores weapons in hospitals. It launches rockets from schools. It prevents civilians from evacuating combat zones.

It is funny that Egypt, though having plenty of room and connected on the Southern border, still refused to create a demilitarized zone; only Israel did that.

No other army in history has done more than Israel to warn civilians, using everything from text messages to dummy bombs to phone calls.

But, of course, Israel is the villain, and Hamas is simply misunderstood. And those Hamas fighters do have a certain magic, when they die in battle they go from hardened fighters, to 10 year old boys out buying hummus. I wonder if they still get the full virgin allotment in heaven or the kiddie portion?

6. Conclusion: The Double Standard That Defines Anti-Zionism

Anti-Zionism is not about “human rights.” It is not about “justice.” It is a unique, selective, and intellectually dishonest attack on the world’s only Jewish state, holding it to standards no other nation is expected to meet.

If someone demands Israel do things that no other nation in history has ever done, if they apply moral outrage selectively only to Israel while excusing far worse behaviour by others. If they continue to insist that the world’s only Jewish homeland must cease to exist—then, yes, it’s anti-Semitism.

I teach at university or did until the University of Guelph decided that calling Hamas Nazis was a firing offence based on the hurt feelings of a fellow professor whose feelings were sacrosanct.

He, according to the University Human Rights Department (they keep forgetting to put their “All our rules and pontifications do not apply to Jews” sign above the door; I stole the last one, but they should have replaced it), says that a man who praises terrorists, calls for the extermination of Israel, calls Jews subhuman and Satanic and voices enthusiasm for those who accuse Jews of trading in human body parts and who recently said that all the hostages were greeted well - yes him.

I think he might not include the ones they murdered, but perhaps his point is referring to hostages before they were murdered, saying that then they were treated well and maybe only raped weekly while not starved to the point of death. I’m not sure I agree with his post.

My sensitive wounded feelings accuser calls for the death of Jews and supports those terrorist groups who want to kill Jews - that, according to the HR Manager, is free speech and fine. Move along, nothing to see here.

If you watch South Park you will know that that is Officer Barbrady’s mantra too.

The University does the same thing my mother-in-law does when I make a point about Putin being evil; I never get an answer. But then again, when she keeps asking why I keep losing the Putin fridge magnet over the rubbish bin, I am equally unresponsive. But she has been good about my Putin toilet paper.

But anti-Zionists aren’t antisemitic; they just have unique double standards.

Of course, it’s antisemitism.

But with anti-Zionism, proponents claim to live on a special moral platform where moral consistency doesn’t matter.

But that doesn’t work really. My brain doesn’t easily twist into a knot; I also can’t put my heel at the back of my neck. Such would defy my physiological limits, and so do arguments that proclaim anti-Zionism can exist without the criteria behind it being applied to other countries.

Our age of social media and the pattern of spouting such sophistry, rooted in the fallacy that asserting a point is the same as validating it, hurt us.

Perhaps people feel they hate the concept of Zionism but somehow still love Israel. Still, sorry, you can’t have it that way because you feel like the laws of reason have been cancelled, especially for you, even if you took a course on how to do that at TOFU University¹. ²

I feel many things; I feel like I have been stuck at 24 for the last 36 years.

If they knew my soul, I feel I would be physically attractive to beautiful women on the street.

I feel my late father’s spirit so strongly when I lie in bed at night.

But no, I am 60, I do not turn heads, and my father is gone. The world does not entertain me if I let these become delusions, and I will not entertain their delusions about their anti-Zionism.

1.

2. The translation for Latin is rough. “I said something, and everybody else shut up” is close. I used to be able to read Latin in my twenties, but too many happy hours destroyed those brain cells. Carpe Diem is all that remains.