https://arab.news/nqw59
There is scarcely a concept in recent history that has been more misused, distorted and misrepresented — both by its most zealous advocates and by those who regard it as the source of all evil in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, if not the world at large — than Zionism. The political motivations of those who subscribe to either of these narratives are often obvious. Yet it is far less clear how debates about Zionism, in and of themselves, remain relevant today or help resolve the conflict in the future.
The Zionist movement emerged in Europe in response to harsh realities, with little consideration for the conditions in what was then Ottoman Palestine. It was a reaction to the antisemitism that Jews faced across much of the continent, but it was also a rebellion against a religious and social order that left millions of Jews impoverished, marginalized and poorly integrated, with limited prospects for a better future. However, what began as a dream for the founders of Zionism has, undeniably, become a nightmare for many Palestinians.
At its core, Zionism sought the establishment of an independent Jewish state, not merely as an expression of religion but as the national home of a people who shared a common identity, heritage and culture, and who believed themselves to have been exiled from their ancestral homeland and subjected to centuries of persecution. The movement aimed to rectify this condition by bringing Jews together in a common territory where they could build both a physical and cultural haven. From the outset, it was an experiment and neither the path to achieving it nor its ultimate consequences were fully foreseeable or understood.
When the UN adopted the partition plan for Palestine in 1947, proposing the creation of separate Jewish and Arab states, and Israel declared independence on May 14, 1948, Zionism as a political movement had, in my view, achieved its primary objective. It had succeeded in establishing a Jewish state and, by that, ended its historical role. What followed was, with varying degrees of success, a process of nation-building and state-building in Israel.
Owing to its large Jewish majority, the state developed a strong Jewish character, while also aspiring to fulfill the commitment set out in its Declaration of Independence to be democratic, inclusive and equal for all its citizens — a commitment that was only partly successful and is now rapidly deteriorating.
The 1967 war and the subsequent occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, together with the increasingly harsh and often brutal control over millions of Palestinians, altered the character of the state — and much for the worse. In the case of the Palestinians, it exacerbated already extremely conflictual relations.
Unfortunately, intellectually lazy narratives have become increasingly common in demonstrations and on social media.
Yossi Mekelberg
Whether one is a passionate supporter of Zionism or a determined opponent, today’s debate concerns the product of Zionism: the state of Israel. Moreover, the Zionist movement itself was always ideologically diverse. It encompassed communists, socialists, liberals and, at its fringes, those influenced by fascist ideas. For most of the period leading up to Israel’s establishment and for decades afterwards, the right-wing elements remained politically marginal and were largely kept away from the reins of power by the electorate.
Furthermore, Zionism was never merely an abstract set of ideas. For its proponents, it was always about action: abandoning life in the diaspora, emigrating to Palestine before 1948 and contributing to the building of Israel. Those who live outside Israel, whether Jewish or not, may support Zionism as an idea but they are not participants in the same sense as those who chose to move there. Likewise, most Israelis were simply born into the state and did not make that choice themselves.
The tragedy of the partition plan is that it did not result in an independent Palestinian state. This failure has been deeply damaging to the Palestinians, but it has also shaped the outlook of many supporters of Zionism and the state of Israel. The Israeli insistence on emphasizing that the Palestinian leadership rejected the partition plan and declared war on the newly established state may be factually correct, but it is of no relevance to resolving the conflict today. Likewise, portraying criticism of Israeli policies as an attack on Zionism itself, or on Israel’s right to exist, often serves as a deflection from the realities of occupation, oppression and de facto annexation.
Yet, Israel cannot ignore that the transformation of the Zionist dream into the state of Israel unfolded alongside the Nakba, or “catastrophe,” during which many Palestinians were killed, dispossessed or displaced and hundreds of thousands became refugees. Israel played a major role in these events, yet has consistently resisted accepting responsibility for them and, more importantly, has failed to take a leading role in addressing their consequences through a genuine commitment to a two-state solution, as well as compensating the victims of those consequences. Doing so would be both morally right and politically prudent.
The continued occupation of the West Bank and, more recently, the renewed military operations in Gaza only reinforce the perception that Israel is, both ideologically and in practice, inherently expansionist.
Nevertheless, it cannot be ignored that, within certain circles of the pro-Palestinian movement, whether large or small, an increasingly troubling tendency has emerged — one that goes beyond criticism of Israeli government policies and instead seeks to delegitimize the state of Israel itself by questioning its right to exist, through also delegitimizing Zionism.
Particularly in Europe and the US, anti-Zionism is sometimes employed not merely to oppose specific Israeli actions but also to deny the legitimacy of Israel altogether, with strong antisemitic undertones. In some cases, the terms “Jew” or “Jews” are replaced with “Zionist,” while reproducing long-standing antisemitic tropes: references to a “Zionist lobby” controlling governments, especially in the US, dictating global financial institutions, or manipulating the media to shield Israel from criticism. Unfortunately, these intellectually lazy narratives have become increasingly common in demonstrations and on social media and, in some instances, have entered mainstream media and even academia.
Leaving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict unresolved, failing to address its root causes and, worse, contributing to its escalation creates space for extremists on all sides to thrive. The misuse of the term Zionism and its exploitation for political purposes does little to advance peace. Instead, it entrenches existing divisions and reinforces mutual hostility, with Zionism serving merely as another weapon in an already polarized struggle.
More than ever, bringing an end to this conflict requires eliminating stereotypes, prejudices and ideological rigidity on all sides, rather than amplifying them. Instead, there is an urgent need for all to recognize that, within the borders of historic Palestine, there live two nations and nearly 15 million people who are equally entitled to dignity, security and political rights.
- Yossi Mekelberg is a professor of international relations and an associate fellow of the MENA Program at Chatham House. X: @YMekelberg