By John Aziz
Wednesday, May 06, 2026
Ezra Klein, writing in the New York Times recently, argued in a defense of the anti-Israel Twitch streamer Hasan
Piker that anti-Zionism is no longer a fringe movement, but a mainstream
one. “Anti-Zionism is rising as a response to what Israel is doing,” Klein
writes.
There’s certainly polling that indicates declining
support for Israel.
In February, Gallup showed that a greater number of Americans claimed
sympathy with Palestinians than with Israelis, with respondents favoring
Palestinians 41 percent to 36 percent. Among Democrats, the gap was much
larger: Sixty-five percent sympathized more with Palestinians, and only 17
percent sympathized more with Israelis. Among Americans aged 18 to 34, 53
percent sympathized more with Palestinians, while 23 percent sympathized more
with Israelis.
Seeking to explain this, Klein writes:
The Israel that young people know
is not the Israel that older people remember. It responded to the savagery of
Oct. 7 by flattening Gaza in a brutal campaign that killed at least 70,000
Gazans, taking control of more than half of the territory and herding
Gazans—more than two million people—into the remainder. Life there remains hellish. Israel has made hopes for a two-state
solution fanciful by slicing the West Bank up into Israeli settlements and
abetting constant settler violence and keeping a boot on the throat
of the Palestinian Authority.
Of course, as a Palestinian myself, I have deep
frustrations with the status quo and with the suffering from the war in Gaza.
For example, I think it is probable that a lot of Palestinian lives could have
been saved if other Middle Eastern countries had helped facilitate evacuations
before the Israeli invasion of Gaza after October 7.
And Israel’s conduct of the war was marked by
dishonorable episodes. Reuters verified posts from Israeli soldiers playing with
women’s underwear found in Gazan homes; the Washington Post later verified more than 120 photos
and videos from the war, many posted by soldiers, showing celebrations of
destruction, mockery of Palestinians, and calls for Israeli resettlement of
Gaza.
But I don’t agree with Klein's attempt to mainstream
anti-Zionism. As I’ve seen through witnessing the failures of Hamas and other
radical groups in Palestinian society, this ideology has brought overwhelming
misery to Palestinians.
So, what is anti-Zionism? Ideologically, it goes far
beyond any kind of disagreement with or critique of Israeli government
policies. It specifically means that the Jewish state itself is illegitimate.
It means that Israel should never have been created and should be dismantled.
October 7 was a practical expression of that.
The conflict over the formation and existence of a Jewish
state over the top of the Palestinians, of course, started long before October
7, 2023. It started long before Israel’s founding in 1948. The violence
actually started during the 1920s and 1930s, under British rule. This is a
conflict between two different nationalist movements that—in the wake of the
collapse of the Ottoman Empire and during the subsequent British mandate to
administer the region—claimed the same piece of land.
Klein attempts to distinguish anti-Zionism from
antisemitism. But the reality is—as others such as Adam Louis-Klein have argued—that
anti-Zionism is a problematic idea in itself, regardless of whether or not it
is equivalent to antisemitism.
What anti-Zionists try to forget is that Israel is a real
country of more than 9 million people. It is recognized by 163 members of the
UN. So when anti-Zionists say that Israel should be dismantled, they are asking
for something totally unrealistic.
How do you persuade millions of Israeli Jews to surrender
sovereignty? There are so many unanswered questions that arise from all of
this. Let's start with this: Who would control the army? Who would write the
constitution? Who would guarantee Jewish safety and how? Who would guarantee
Palestinian safety and how? How would episodes of revenge be prevented? How do
you blend Israeli and Palestinian identity and people into a single country?
How would property claims be adjudicated? What political authority would
command enough trust from both peoples to carry this out?
The only answer that anti-Zionists tend to be forthcoming
about is that they believe Israel should be boycotted and sanctioned until its
government agrees to dissolve. But when you think through what this means, it's
not practical.
The modern world relies on Israeli technology. Israeli
tech is embedded in computing, cybersecurity, agriculture, water management,
navigation, medical devices, semiconductors, and within the defense industries.
People who imagine Israel can be isolated into disappearance rarely grapple
with this. You may dislike Israel. You may choose to boycott a hummus brand. Many people do. But the world is
not going to boycott its way out of Israeli technology. And even if the world
could boycott Israel, this kind of pressure would not change the simple fact
that Israelis—and particularly Jewish Israelis, who make up 75 percent of the
Israeli population—will not agree to dismantle their own state.
Israelis remember the suicide bombings of the Second
Intifada. They remember rocket attacks that followed after Israel’s withdrawal
from Gaza in 2005. They remember October 7. When anti-Zionists talk about
dismantling Israel, Israelis hear a call for dismantling all of the protections
that stand between them and a group of jihadists who want them dead.
Of course, not all Palestinians agree with such a thing.
But no people voluntarily gives up sovereignty when they are surrounded by
multiple groups who want to hurt or oppress them. Israeli Jews will not disarm
because pro-Palestinian activists in London, Los Angeles, or Sydney promise
them “equality.” Hamas, certainly, does not agree that Israeli Jews would be
able to live as equal citizens under its regime. A Hamas conference in 2021 endorsed the notion of enslaving
some Jews and mass-deporting others.
And so it doesn't surprise me very much to see that
Israeli public opinion has shifted rightwards. A recent Maariv poll of first-time Israeli voters
aged 18 to 22 found that 56 percent identify as right-wing, compared with 44
percent of older Israelis; only 8 percent of those young voters identified as
center-left or left-wing.
Anti-Zionists might like to think they are weakening
Israel by questioning Zionism. In practice, they often strengthen the forces
inside Israel most hostile to Palestinian statehood and to Palestinians
themselves. Tell Israelis that the question is what to do about settlements,
and there can be an argument about that. Tell them the question is what the
appropriate borders are, and there can be an argument about that. Tell them the
question is military occupation, and there can be an argument about that. Tell
them the question is whether their country should even exist, and the argument
changes completely. It boils down to a question of their own survival.
And this is not how the world usually treats states, even
those whose governments have done terrible things.
Germany committed the worst crimes in modern history
under its Nazi regime. But there is still a country called Germany that exists
today. Serbia is another example. Serbian forces and leaders were responsible
for appalling crimes during the Yugoslav wars. But there is still a country
called Serbia that exists today.
Russia has committed atrocities in Ukraine. China has
committed grave abuses against Uyghurs and Tibetans. Turkey has denied and
repressed Kurdish national aspirations. Pakistan was born out of partition and
violence. The United States was founded with slavery and settler conquest.
History’s conclusion is not usually that such states have forfeited the right
to national existence.
Klein looks at Netanyahu, Gaza, the West Bank
settlements, and the Israeli right and sees why anti-Zionism is becoming more
attractive. I look at the same things and see why anti-Zionism is such a
disastrous and ruinous proposal.
The Israeli right already has its own ready-made version
of rejectionism. As Klein himself points out, Netanyahu has openly opposed a
Palestinian state. His coalition partners go further still: Bezalel Smotrich
has called for Israel’s border with Lebanon to extend to the Litani River, while Itamar Ben-Gvir has repeatedly called for Israeli resettlement of Gaza and the
“voluntary migration” of Palestinians from the Gaza Strip; at a May 2024
ultranationalist rally, he said Israel was “committed to returning to Gaza” and
“committed to settling there.” Smotrich has also spoken in maximalist terms about Israeli
expansion into Gaza, Lebanon, and Syria. Settlements have carved up the West
Bank, and settler violence has made daily life more frightening and dangerous
for Palestinians who live there, including my own family.
But the truth that everybody must face is that neither
side is going to dissolve. Neither side is going to consent to their own
dismantling, much less destruction.
Of course, agreeing to a compromise will not be easy. It
will be extraordinarily challenging. We have tried many times before. And, I
admit, we have failed many times before.
There's a whole list of thorny challenges: Issues
surrounding borders, refugees, governance of Jerusalem, security arrangements,
settlements, recognition, demilitarization, water, airspace, and holy sites
would all take a gargantuan effort to resolve. But negotiating all of these
issues still seems like a preferable outcome compared to the alternatives. That
makes me optimistic
that a solution can be found.
What I also know very clearly is that anti-Zionism
possesses no serious answers to any of these questions. In fact, it asks
Palestinians to hold out and continue to suffer for the undoing of Israel. It
tells us that the real victory is not a state of our own, but the end of the
Jewish state. This is a recipe, I am afraid, for permanent conflict and
suffering.
No comments:
Post a Comment