Anti-Zionism is not Antisemitism—At least for those thinking Rationally (5 August 2025)
Part I — An Alleged Truth
On 21 July 2025 the LA Times carried an op-ed by Mark Brilliant, Associate Professor of History at UC Berkeley, entitled: “Anti-Zionism is antisemitism — university leaders settle the question.” This is an important topic impacting the practice of free speech in the United States so any definitive statement like that made by Brilliant requires close examination. So just how was this alleged truth revealed?
Brilliant referenced the responses of three university presidents ( UC Berkeley Chancellor Rich Lyons, City University of New York Chancellor Félix V. Matos Rodríguez and Georgetown interim President Robert M. Groves), appearing before the House Committee on Education & Workforce. They were replying to a narrow, one-dimensional question presented to them by Representative Burgess Owens (R-Utah), to wit: “Is denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination … antisemitism? Yes or no?” Generally, presenting complex and emotionally laden questions in this yes or no manner can be taken as a puerile debating maneuver. Yet the university presidents responded without hesitation or protest. They answered “yes,” perhaps out of genuine conviction or perhaps because of Trump’s economic blackmail.
Whatever their motives, Brilliant takes their answers as “proof” that a factual relation exists between anti-Zionism and antisemitism. He explained that “The right to Jewish self-determination is a textbook definition of Zionism. The clarity with which the university officials pegged anti-Zionism as antisemitic is much-needed and long overdue.” Case closed?
Brilliant and Rep. Owens were following the recent definition of antisemitism put forth by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA): “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.” Ipso facto, opposition to Zionism (which here stands in for “Jewish community”) is antisemitic.
Part II — Brilliant’s Errors
There are important errors here.
(1) We have to make a distinction between, on the one hand, Zionism as the one dimensional political ideology behind a system of government and culture and, on the other hand, Israel/Palestine as a multi-ethnic and multi-religious nation. Under the influence of Zionism the Jews of Israel/Palestine, a majority but not the entire population (let’s not forget the 2.1 million Palestinians who live, not in the Occupied Territories, but in Zionist Israel itself), rapidly evolved their own model of a one dimensional racist apartheid system of law and governance. They then proceeded to force this form of government on the rest of the population. Nonetheless, Zionism, which is peculiar to Israeli Jews, is not to be confused with Israel/Palestine as a nation. How so?
(2) The actions of Israeli Jews over the past 70 years were similar to those of South African whites. Both groups freely chose a apartheid system. Each group sought a society that discriminated against large segments of the population. This perverted the national character of the nation and inevitably generated resistance. It is important to note that, in the case of South Africa, apartheid is no more. Yet the nation of South Africa remains. This tells us that systems of government and even cultural models can change (for better or worse) and the nation survives.
Brilliant would, ironically, dismiss this argument against Zionism (a racist system) as itself racist. “anti-Zionism, in its most basic form — denying to the Jewish people the right to self-determination, a right recognized as inherent to countless others, including Palestinians — is itself a form of antisemitism.” In asserting this, Brilliant stumbles into a contradiction: (3) The evolution of the Zionist Israeli state has been built on the denial of self-determination for the Palestinians. If denial of the right of self-determination is racism (in the form of antisemitism in Brilliant’s example) then Zionism stands similarly condemned in its behavior towards the Palestinians.
But Brilliant is wrong. Anti-Zionism, as it stands today, does not look to the destruction of Israel, any more than an anti-Apartheid stance looked to the destruction of the state of South Africa. It is the inherently racist political and cultural system of Zionism, now so indelibly demonstrated in Gaza, that needs to be outlawed. Zionism,“in its most basic form,” is a form of apartheid. With its erasure a changed Jewish Israel becomes part of a multi-religious and multi-cultural Israel/Palestine. And the world is spared yet another apartheid regime.
Part III — Another False Claim
There is one final point that Brilliant brings up that deserves attention. It is actually an old complaint: “Anti-Zionists single out the Jewish state alone for elimination.”
The author doesn’t bother to ask how come. He just throws the proposition out there as a given. But here is the truth of the matter. First, it is my very long experience that this proposition is not true. If you look at the protest history of many of those (particularly the older crowd) who oppose Zionism you will find as well active opposition to other examples of racism (both domestic and foreign). There are also some obvious reasons why most of these protesters (of any age) display a special interest in Zionist Israel. (1) The main reason, much to the embarrassment of the Zionists, is because most of the protesters are Jewish. And being Jewish, they see Zionist Israel not as the fulfillment of Jewish rights, but as a betrayal of Jewish teachings. (2) In addition, for American Jews, Israel is a nation that has organized a subversive lobby, acting as an agent of a foreign government, that has corrupted just about every institution of the U.S. government.
Part IV—Conclusion
Simply put, if Zionist Jews (or any other group for that matter) can only construct a state in an apartheid racist fashion, then they should not be allowed to have one. However, if they can come to accept a multi-ethnic and multi-religious state within a democratic framework, then Jewish “self-determination,” within that shared context, becomes doable.*
Alas, with the example of Gaza before us it is hard to see how the Israeli Jews can achieve a non-racist presence in Israel/Palestine. And, even if by some miracle they do so, it is hard to see how the Palestinians can possibly be well-disposed toward them. However the immediate future turns out, we probably have decades of friction, much of it violent, ahead of us.
* There was once a possibility of a non-racist Zionism. This was the cultural Zionism espoused by Asher Ginsberg (1857-1926), also known as Ahad Ha’am. Ginsberg did not favor a Jewish state, but rather a Jewish cultural home in Palestine promoting the Hebrew language and knowledge of alleged “historical roots.” How this would have ultimately evolved we will never know. Political Zionism urging “practical steps” to achieve a state became the dominant form of Zionism, pushing cultural Zionism into the background.
