Zionism, After the Fact

By Abe Greenwald

Wednesday, May 27, 2026

 

A number of Israel-supporters have noted that the terms “Zionism” and “Zionist” are, from a present-day perspective, confusing or even insulting. As Zionism refers to a belief and a movement that sought to establish a modern Jewish homeland, does it make sense still to speak of Zionists when that homeland has existed for more than 75 years?

 

Coleman Hughes remarked in a recent episode of his podcast that it makes as much sense to declare oneself a Zionist today as it would to self-describe as an abolitionist. The State of Israel is a long-established fact, and American slavery has long been abolished. In this reading, perhaps the term Zionism is an anachronism that’s intended to cast a shadow of impermanence or erasure over the Jewish state.

 

I think Hughes makes a powerful point in comparing the relevance of Zionism and abolitionism. But it’s equally illuminating to contrast the two.

 

There is, after all, a reason that self-proclaimed abolitionists no longer exist while Zionists do: While there is no active anti-abolition movement, there’s a massive, coordinated, and armed anti-Zionist campaign looking to undo history and destroy Israel.

 

Now, let’s keep the contrast going with a little thought experiment. What if a modern anti-abolitionist movement suddenly arose? How would elite opinion respond to those actively fighting to repeal the 13th Amendment and reinstate slavery?

 

With fury, of course. Western liberals would be disgusted and outraged by the political organization of retrograde racists.

 

“Wait,” let’s imagine the anti-abolitionists saying in response. “Why do you call us racists? We have nothing against black people. In fact, they were dealt a terrible injustice by the United States. They were forced to integrate into a hostile country that had previously stripped them of every means of integrating. The result has been misery for them and the rest of us. Isn’t that what liberals are always going on about? The gross inequities in opportunity, wealth, health, and so on? You want to perpetuate that? We’re not talking about black people around the world. We’re talking about a historical injustice that was committed by this country. We want to solve the problem, and now you have the nerve to equate anti-abolitionism with anti-blackness?” 

 

Would anyone deeply consider the merits of this elision? Would the potential virtues of anti-abolitionism become an acceptable topic for debate—so acceptable that one would have to declare oneself as a pro- or anti-abolitionist?

 

Of course not. The fringe nobodies who hold these kinds of ideas—and often justify them on “humanitarian” grounds—are considered lunatics.

 

But left-liberal opinion has determined that anti-Zionists—who openly call for the destruction of Israel, support jihadist terrorism, and claim to have nothing against Jews—are well-meaning progressives on the right side of history. Their justification for wanting to eradicate the one Jewish state checks out.

 

And so Israel-supporters have been boxed into an anachronistic category. We are called Zionists because the so-called civilized world has decided to pretend that the legitimacy of a Jewish state is an open question. The truth is that I don’t fret about the semantics as much as others because, in reality, the modern State of Israel closed the debate 78 years ago. And if its enemies are offended by Zionism, I’m a Zionist for life.