The argument presented in JNS’s article,“Anti-Zionism Without the Hyphen,”strikes at the heart of a dangerous and disingenuous trend. The effort to separate antizionism from antisemitism is not merely an intellectual exercise—it is a deliberate attempt to sanitise bigotry for modern sensibilities. It is, as the article rightly asserts, a distinction without a difference.
Zionism is not an abstract ideology conjured in isolation; it is the national liberation movement of the Jewish people. To oppose Zionism, therefore, is to oppose the Jewish people’s right to self-determination in their historic homeland. This denial is rarely, if ever, applied to other nations. No one questions the legitimacy of Italian nationhood or demands a referendum on the existence of France. And yet, when it comes to Israel, such denial is not only common but often celebrated.
The claim that antizionism is merely a critique of Israeli policies collapses under scrutiny. Antizionism’s primary aim is not to reform or refine, but to delegitimise. It does not seek better governance but questions the very existence of the Jewish state.
The insistence on drawing a line between antizionism and antisemitism is not just intellectually dishonest—it is dangerous. Antizionism is not simply “criticism of Israel.” It is the latest iteration of an age-old prejudice that has historically sought to marginalise and vilify Jews. The parallels are undeniable.
When antizionists claim that Zionism is a global conspiracy or depict Israel as an insidious force, they echo the same tropes that have been used to demonise Jews for centuries.
The rhetoric has changed, but the underlying intent has not.
This masquerade is particularly insidious because it seeks to distance itself from the overt antisemitism of the past. Antizionism attempts to position itself as a progressive stance, cloaked in the language of human rights and justice. But scratch the surface, and the same bigotry is revealed—dressed up, but unmistakable.
The real-world implications of this rhetoric are grave. Around the globe, Jews are being attacked not for their actions, but for their perceived connection to Israel. Antizionism emboldens those who see Jews as uniquely culpable, whether in London, Paris, or New York.
The selective outrage of the antizionist movement further exposes its true nature. These critics are silent on the atrocities of North Korea or the oppression of Uyghurs in China, yet they reserve their fury for the one liberal democracy in the Middle East. It is not justice they seek but the singling out of Israel, the only Jewish state, for delegitimisation and destruction.
The article rightly calls for a reclaiming of the narrative. Zionism must be understood in its proper context: as a movement of justice, survival, and historical continuity. It is the expression of a people’s right to self-determination after millennia of persecution.
Criticism of Israel’s policies is, of course, legitimate. But there is a line, and antizionism crosses it. It denies Israel’s right to exist, holds it to impossible moral standards, and singles it out for condemnation in a way no other nation is subjected to.
The removal of the hyphen between antizionism and antisemitism is not mere semantics. It is a call to expose the true nature of a movement that disguises its hostility as virtue.
Antizionism is not an intellectual critique or a principled stance—it is a form of antisemitism, repackaged for the 21st century. The refusal to acknowledge this only emboldens those who seek to delegitimise Israel and by extension, the Jewish people.
As the article powerfully concludes, there is no middle ground here. Anti-Zionism is antisemitism, and it must be called out as such—with clarity, with courage, and with an unwavering commitment to the truth. For in the battle against this ideology, we defend not only Israel but the principles of justice, equality, and truth itself.
