There is something profoundly revealing about the modern transformation of antizionism from a political stance into a global identity movement. This shift lays bare an uncomfortable truth: anti-Zionism was never truly about the policies of the Israeli government or the complexities of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict—if it ever genuinely pretended to be. From its inception, anti-Zionism has been a convenient cover for antisemitism, a palatable disguise for ancient hatreds to parade as contemporary moral critique. Today, this facade has not merely endured but metastasised into something far beyond what even its early propagators could have envisioned.
Antizionism has transcended its ideological origins to become a badge of belonging, a symbol of virtue signalling for those who wish to cloak prejudice in the language of justice. It is an ideological shorthand not for opposition to Israel’s policies but for opposition to the very idea of Jewish self-determination. Like all movements that thrive on moral simplification, it has gained strength through emotional appeal and intellectual incoherence, weaponising compassion while erasing nuance. Its true aim is not to critique Israel but to delegitimise it entirely, along with the rights of the Jewish people to their homeland.
At its core, antizionism has morphed into a performative moral identity. For many, particularly within progressive movements, proclaiming oneself an anti-Zionist is not a reasoned position based on historical knowledge or geopolitical understanding. Rather, it is a declaration of allegiance—a way of signalling that one stands on the side of the "oppressed" and against the "oppressor." In this simplistic binary, Israel is cast as the embodiment of colonialist evil, while the Palestinians are frozen in time as perpetual victims of this so-called oppression.
The complexities of history, the tragedies of competing nationalisms, and the messy realities of the modern Middle East are swept aside in favour of a narrative that is both comforting and intoxicating. It allows the anti-Zionist to feel virtuous without ever needing to grapple with the inconvenient facts of the matter. It also provides an easy entry point into broader movements against perceived systems of oppression, such as colonialism, capitalism, and racism.
One of the most striking features of antizionism as a global identity movement is its ability to unite groups that would otherwise be at war with one another. The far-left, the far-right, and Islamist movements all find common cause in their hostility toward Israel, despite their ideological chasms.
For the far-left, antizionism is framed as an extension of their anti-colonial and anti-capitalist struggles. Zionism is caricatured as a European colonial project, ignoring the fact that it is, in reality, a movement of Jewish self-determination rooted in millennia of connection to the land. For the far-right, antizionism is often a thin veil for old-fashioned antisemitism, repackaged in terms of opposition to “globalist elites” or Israel’s supposed disproportionate influence on world affairs. Islamist movements, meanwhile, see Israel as a religious affront and a territorial usurper, their hostility stemming from both ideological and theological convictions.
Together, these strange bedfellows have constructed a coalition of convenience. They share no common vision for the world, only a shared enemy in the form of Israel and, by extension, Zionism. That they manage to align on this issue alone is a testament to how antizionism has been weaponised as a rallying cry for those seeking to redirect their grievances onto a convenient scapegoat.
Much of the appeal of antizionism lies in its alignment with broader anti-Western and anti-imperialist narratives. Israel is frequently depicted as a Western outpost in the Middle East—a proxy for American and European imperialism. This depiction is, of course, historically and geographically absurd. Israel is not a colonial invention, but a homeland re-established by a persecuted people in the aftermath of one of the most horrific genocides in human history. Yet this truth is inconvenient for those who see antizionism as part of a wider crusade against the evils of the West.
By aligning itself with this broader narrative, antizionism gains a veneer of moral authority. It allows its adherents to believe that their opposition to Israel is part of a global struggle for justice, even as they ally themselves with regimes and ideologies that are themselves profoundly oppressive. Thus, antizionism becomes a vehicle not for justice, but for hypocrisy—an outlet for moral posturing unencumbered by consistency or self-awareness.
The transformation of antizionism into a global identity movement has profound consequences. First, it simplifies and distorts the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, reducing it to a binary morality tale in which one side is entirely evil and the other entirely virtuous. Such reductionism not only obscures the realities of the conflict but also entrenches divisions, making genuine dialogue and understanding all but impossible.
Second, it polarises debates about Israel and Zionism, turning them into litmus tests for moral virtue. To support Israel, or even to suggest that its existence is legitimate, is increasingly seen as a betrayal of progressive values. Conversely, to declare oneself an anti-Zionist is to be welcomed into the fold of the virtuous, regardless of how ill-informed or inconsistent one’s position may be.
Finally, and perhaps most troublingly, it provides cover for antisemitism. By framing opposition to Israel as a moral imperative, antizionism legitimises and amplifies age-old antisemitic tropes, such as the notion of Jewish control or conspiracy. This is not an incidental byproduct of antizionism; it is an inherent feature of its current iteration.
To counter antizionism as a global identity movement, it is not enough to point out its hypocrisies or to defend Israel’s policies. What is needed is a reassertion of Zionism as a movement of justice, resilience, and self-determination. Zionism must be framed not as a defensive response to antizionism, but as a positive and forward-looking vision of Jewish life and nationhood.
This means educating people about the true history of Zionism, rooted in the Jewish people’s ancient connection to the land of Israel. It means highlighting the contributions of Israel to global culture, science, and technology. And it means exposing the contradictions and moral failures of those who use antizionism as a shield for their own prejudices and inadequacies.
Antizionism as a global identity movement is not a position grounded in truth or justice. It is, at its core, a movement of untruths—built on historical distortions, sustained by intellectual laziness, and perpetuated by moral arrogance. Its rise should alarm anyone who values nuance, honesty, and the possibility of coexistence. For while antizionism presents itself as a force for liberation, it is, in reality, a force for division—a global identity that unites only in its shared commitment to falsehood.
By Catherine Perez-Shakdam - Executive Director We Believe In Israel
