In an op-ed I wrote for the Dutch newspaper Trouw I argued that Palestine-supporters should not engage in debates about Zionism. They should also stop calling themselves anti-Zionists. The recent article by Stephen E. Sachs, published in the Harvard Law Review Forum, confirms why this strategy is not only wise but necessary.
Sachs argues that anti-Zionism can amount to unlawful discrimination under Title VI when it becomes a condition for full participation in university life. In his analysis anti-Zionism functions as national origin discrimination against Israelis and against Jews understood as a people even when it presents itself as political or ideological opposition. The shift from antisemitism to anti-Zionism does not make the legal problem disappear. It merely changes its language.
This legal reality proves my point. Fighting for the right to call oneself ‘anti-Zionist’ is a risky battle that brings no advantages even if it is won. Worse, it drains time, energy, and resources that are desperately needed elsewhere.
An analogy makes this clear.
Imagine that Russia has a military base on Mars. This base has no influence on the war in Ukraine. Ukraine nevertheless decides to attack it. The operation costs enormous resources and many soldiers’ lives. Because of this diversion Ukraine weakens its position at home and even risks losing part of its own territory. Such a strategy would be irrational. It would replace the real objective with a symbolic but irrelevant target.
This is exactly what happens when Palestine-supporters focus on Zionism. Zionism is the base on Mars. It is irrelevant to the real objectives of the struggle.
The debate over Palestine has clear and concrete goals.
The first objective is a Palestinian state. In its 2024 advisory opinion the International Court of Justice stated that Palestinians have a right to an independent state in 100 percent of the occupied territories, in Gaza and the West Bank. The opinion is eighty-three pages long. The word ‘Zionism’ has not appeared once. You do not need to debate Zionism to win the legal and political case for Palestinian statehood.
The second objective is to end the occupation. The Court declared the occupation illegal and demanded that Israel end it as soon as possible.
The third objective is to dismantle the settlements. The Court stated that Israel must end the settlement enterprise and dismantle the existing settlements immediately.
Every debate has a central motion. In the debate over Palestine that motion is the right to Palestinian self-determination. Ending the occupation and dismantling settlements are satellite assertions that support this core claim.
There are also other secondary assertions that fit naturally within this framework. The settlements are war crimes. The separation barrier in the West Bank is illegal. Israel violates human rights. In its 2004 advisory opinion on the separation barrier the ICJ listed extensive human rights violations across 103 pages. Again, the word ‘Zionism’ does not appear.
Even accusations of apartheid or genocide can be defended without invoking Zionism. None of the central legal arguments require it.
My assertion is simple. A Palestine-supporter can debate all relevant issues in this conflict without using the word ‘Zionism’ and without describing himself as anti-Zionist. Like the attack on the Mars base, the Zionism debate derails the struggle and exposes it to unnecessary risk.
The first risk is definitional chaos. Anyone who calls himself anti-Zionist must first explain what Zionism means. But Zionism has never had a single definition. Political Zionism, socialist Zionism, revisionist Zionism, religious Zionism, cultural Zionism and Christian Zionism all describe radically different ideas. In public debates, protests or media appearances there is no time to clarify which version one rejects.
This gives Israel-supporters a decisive advantage. When attacking the anti-Zionist, they will always define Zionism as the right of Jews to self-determination or the right to a Jewish state. From there the accusation follows automatically. The anti-Zionist allegedly denies Jews a right granted to all other peoples or seeks the destruction of Israel and the expulsion of Jews.
People who already hold firm views will not change their minds. I have written repeatedly to pro-Israel parties in the Dutch parliament explaining international law and the legal obligations of the Netherlands. Their voting behavior never changed. Arguments do not move them.
The real battle is for those who have not yet formed an opinion. These people can easily be persuaded that anti-Zionism equals antisemitism. Israel supporters will invoke the IHRA definition of antisemitism and its examples such as denying Jewish self-determination or applying double standards to Israel.
At that point the Palestine-supporter is trapped. He must now defend himself against accusations of antisemitism and explain why the IHRA definition is flawed. This effort produces no progress on the real objectives. It is pure diversion.
Sachs shows that the costs go even further. Anti-Zionists increasingly face legal and disciplinary procedures. Courts and universities become new battlegrounds. Time money and energy are consumed in defending the right to use a label rather than advancing Palestinian rights. Resources are finite. You cannot fight for a Palestinian state while simultaneously fighting legal battles over the term anti-Zionism.
Sachs’s conclusion could convince others: when anti-Zionism is used to deny Israelis or Jews equal access to education unless they renounce their national existence it can constitute unlawful discrimination regardless of the ideological language used.
This confirms the strategic mistake. Fighting for the label ‘anti-Zionist’ is like attacking the Mars base. It feels principled. It feels symbolic. But it weakens the real struggle.
Palestine-supporters do not need Zionism to make their case. International law already provides everything that is needed. The focus should stay where it belongs on occupation on settlements and on Palestinian self-determination.
Be First to Comment