"Anti-Zionism is Antisemitism," On Campus

The exhaustive, definitive account of why the expression, though coarse, is absolutely correct

[I’ve written a very long essay examining this question from many angles, etc. I post the first section of it here. I may post more in subsequent weeks. Meanwhile the whole thing is available on request.]

“Anti-Zionism is Antisemitism,” on Campus

The expression, “anti-Zionism is antisemitism,” is obviously coarse. Both terms can mean many things, both ideologies can manifest themselves many ways, and the people subscribing to them, the anti-Zionists and the antisemites, are all unique individuals with idiosyncratic histories, motivations, etc., all of which makes evaluating the expression itself very challenging. Taken literally, the expression asserts either that the ideologies are identical or that the former is a species of the latter. They are not identical: their basic definitions differ at least superficially and much antisemitism does not manifest itself as anti-Zionism. Thus I take the expression to assert that anti-Zionism is a species of antisemitism. But even here that doesn’t mean that every manifestation of anti-Zionism or every anti-Zionist is antisemitic; in fact one can be an anti-Zionist without being an antisemite, and some individuals do fall into that category. Strictly speaking one should not generalize absolutely in the way that the coarse expression invites.

Note that that point goes both ways. Those who categorically deny that “anti-Zionism is antisemitism” would seem to be denying that anti-Zionism can ever be a manifestation of or motivated by antisemitism, which I will argue is clearly false. So perhaps both those inclined to affirm and those inclined to deny the coarse proposition should agree that “sometimes it is, and sometimes it isn’t,” so that the more nuanced question becomes that of determining just when it is and when it isn’t.

Nevertheless, since the slogan is widely debated in just that coarse way, and both for the ease of speaking and for the sake of theorizing, I too will incline toward the general. I will argue that—despite their differences in definitions and sometimes in details—the typical foundations, motivations, methods, and consequences of anti-Zionism (both as an ideology and as reflected in practice and activism), in the actual context in which the movement primarily exists and operates, justify even that coarse expression. Or more informally: anti-Zionism is indeed antisemitic, rather through and through, the occasional exception notwithstanding. My emphasis will be on the manifestations of these issues on North American campuses.

1. Introductory Matters

Answering the question whether anti-Zionism is antisemitism obviously requires definitions of each.

“Zionism” is the easier one: “Zionism” shall mean roughly the belief that Jews have the right to a sovereign state in their ancestral homeland, along with nearby permutations of the idea. “Anti-Zionism” would be the negation of that, which could amount to an “in principle” or an “in practice” opposition, or both. A proponent of the latter might support Zionism “in principle” but hold that, “in practice” it was or is unfeasible, or inconsistent with other “rights,” etc.[1] The stronger “in principle” anti-Zionism can take various forms, such as denying Jewish history or claiming that “Zionism is racism.”[2]

So understood, it isn’t “anti-Zionism” (nor antisemitism) to criticize this or that particular policy or behavior of Israel, though it may amount to anti-Zionism (and antisemitism) to do so dishonestly or to relentlessly, obsessively criticize every policy or behavior of Israel and find nothing redeemable about the state. Nor is it “anti-Zionism” (nor antisemitism) to advocate for a Palestinian state in the context of a two-state solution, nor to advocate for Palestinian rights more generally (except where these exclude Zionism). Zionism itself is perfectly consistent in principle with a Palestinian state and various Palestinian rights. Prior to 1948 “anti-Zionism” refers to the opposition to establishing the Jewish state; post-1948 it now invariably includes the practical aim of dismantling the Jewish state to which it objects, which involves far more than merely “criticizing” this or that policy or policies.

As for defining “antisemitism,” there are plenty of definitions from which to choose: the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition, the “Jerusalem Declaration,” “Nexus Document,” Natan Sharansky’s “3D test,” the anonymous blogger Elder of Ziyon’s (here and here), journalist Bret Stephens’s, and so on. As definitions go, I’m partial to Elder of Ziyon’s (below), which is succinct yet comprehensive, and also allows a taxonomy of different manifestations of antisemitism; unfortunately it is not well known. The IHRA definition is the most influential, important less for the definition itself (which is vague) than for including among its examples of possibly antisemitic claims several related to Israel and Zionism.¹ For that reason it is also controversial, motivating anti-Zionists to oppose it, generally by alleging that it amounts to a weapon to silence “legitimate criticism of Israel” for being “antisemitic.”[3] That controversy has been enough to spawn the Jerusalem and Nexus definitions, whose proponents by all appearances aim to defend anti-Zionism from the antisemitic verdict.[4] In this paper I’ll largely avoid the scholarly debates over the competing definitions, not least because I think most people decide what is antisemitic first then choose their definitions accordingly—rather than start with the definitions.[5]

I’ll suggest we provisionally work with Elder of Ziyon’s definition, summarized in this graphic:

Along the way we’ll add some nuance to this definition,[6] but for now just one caveat: It would obviously beg the question simply to include hostility etc. toward Jews “as a nation” (i.e. anti-Zionism) in our definition, so treat this paper as an argument in support of including that phrase in the definition. The rest of the definition shall afford a working handle on the antisemitism that is not particularly contested, namely that which doesn’t involve Israel or Zionism. Indeed Elder of Ziyon’s writings make a strong case that his definition captures all the classical forms of antisemitism coming into and throughout the twentieth century, including Christian, Muslim, racial, right-wing, etc. The question now is whether, in what circumstances, and to what degree anti-Zionism in its various manifestations fits that definition.²

A final caveat. Even with a definition in hand, determining what or who is “antisemitic” can be challenging because it requires many distinctions, for example between antisemitic motivations, beliefs, statements, expressions, policies, actions, and people. The very same statement might be antisemitic uttered in some contexts but not in others; the very same belief or action might be antisemitic when held or done by one person but not by another; people can say or do antisemitic things without themselves being antisemitic; some particular behavior may not be antisemitic but the overall cumulative pattern of behavior might be; the antisemitism might be revealed not in what the person says or does but in what they do not say or do. The reason IHRA qualifies its examples by noting that they “could” or “may” be antisemitic is precisely because context plays an indispensable role in evaluating any particular incidents (or patterns thereof) that precludes absolute and universal determinations. That means (again) we must proceed in a general way, reaching general conclusions that may well admit of individual exceptions. “X is antisemitic” may be as coarse as “Anti-Zionism is antisemitism,” again, but may well be true “in general” even where it admits of individual exceptions.

2. Anti-Zionism is Antisemitism “On the Face of It”

To echo the Jerusalem language (but reverse their determination), I begin by arguing that anti-Zionism is antisemitic “on the face of it,” or prima facie; that our default should be that it is unless in some particular instance it can be demonstrated otherwise.

Start with two essential points.

(1) The first is well-known, though often contested by anti-Zionists. As I’ll explain further below, it’s that, for most Jews, Zionism is deeply entwined with and/or based on their Judaism and Jewish identity. Most, but by no means all: it is indeed possible to disentangle them, as some individuals do, and embrace some version of “Judaism” divorced from Zionism. That was what 19^th century Reform Judaism did, and is what contemporary groups such as “Jewish Voice for Peace” do. There are also Orthodox sects whose version of Judaism supports a practical anti-Zionism (rejecting not the principle of Jewish sovereignty but its achievement by non-messianic means). We’ll return to all these groups later, but for now note that none of that is relevant for those Jews (still the large majority) committed to the 3000-year-old tradition of a Judaism permeated by Zionism, including in its scripture, rabbinic literature, liturgy, rituals, history, and more. Anti-Zionist Jews may believe anything they want without negating the fact that Zionism, for most Jews, is deeply rooted in their shared Jewish ancestry and religion.

(2) The second point, though obvious, is largely overlooked. Although not all Israelis are Jews and not all Jews are Israeli, and not all Zionists are Jews and not all Jews are Zionists, nevertheless Israel is a, or the, Jewish project, and not for nothing is it widely referred to as the “Jewish state”: the population is 75% Jewish, half the world’s Jews live there, most who don’t live there support it, consider it part of their Jewish identity, many having family and friends there (so most Jews are Zionists), the state itself has a Jewish character (language, culture, calendar, etc.), it’s home to millenia of Jewish history and archeology, the Orthodox Jewish religion can only be truly fully practiced there, etc. As I’ve argued in detail elsewhere: although one can do otherwise, what we talk about in general, when we talk about Israel, is the Jews. Of course it’s possible to talk about Israel without talking about the Jews; but most of the time, what most people in fact are talking about when they talk about Israel, is ultimately the Jews.[7]

These two points alone make “hating Israel” (as an anti-Zionist) while not “hating Jews” (as an antisemite) exceptionally challenging. If Zionism is rooted in Judaism, as it is for many, then hating Zionism requires hating Judaism; demanding “Zionism off campus!”, as many campus anti-Zionists do, requires demanding “Judaism off campus!”; and hating “Zionists,” targeting “Zionists” with violence, and wanting “Zionists off campus” requires hating and targeting many Jews and wanting Jews off campus.[8] And though not all Israelis are Jews etc., nevertheless the allegations anti-Zionists make against Israel are, ultimately, allegations against Jews; when they accuse Israel of dastardly deeds, they are ultimately accusing Jews of dastardly deeds. If antisemitism per Elder of Ziyon’s definition involves hostility etc. toward Jews, then the bar for being anti-Zionist without being antisemitic will indeed be very high.

Journalist Bret Stephens makes this point when he notes that

“Zionist” has become just another word for Jew. Anti-Zionists deny this strenuously … [because] they’d like to believe—or at least tell others—that their objection is to a political ideology rather than to a people or a religion.

Well known anti-Zionist Steven Salaita (who lost an academic position for his anti-Zionist social media activity) also makes the point in this controversial tweet:

Zionists: transforming “antisemitism” from something horrible into something honorable since 1948

We’ll return to the scare quotes there, and anti-Zionist denials, below; for now, problematic as this tweet may be to some, it has the virtue of recognizing that hostility toward Israel is ultimately hostility toward the Jews.

(3) The “anti” in “anti-Zionism” is a red flag: the movement is not for something but against something, namely something that most Jews seek and believe is in their self-interest. So anti-Zionism is opposed to most Jews and their interests, which surely sounds antisemitic prima facie. “Pro-Palestinian” has no such immediate connotations, and of course many anti-Zionists also describe themselves as such, claiming that their pro-Palestinianism requires their anti-Zionism.[9] There is a substantive debate to be had there, not least because we noted that Zionism itself is consistent with various Palestinian rights, interests, and even a Palestinian state in the context of a “two state solution.” But the fact that it is possible (and quite easy) to be “pro-Palestinian” without being anti-Zionist (or antisemitic), as we’ll observe below, suggests that adopting “anti-Zionism” is a choice an activist makes, a choice against the Jews—a therefore prima facie antisemitic one.[10]

(4) Indeed, the definitional anti-Zionist claim that there should be no Jewish state is itself prima facie antisemitic. It denies the Jews’ right to self-determination in their ancestral homeland, a right widely granted to other peoples (including, by most anti-Zionists, to the Palestinians). Indeed, those who advocate against Jewish self-determination typically express no objection to the 20-plus Arab states, 50-plus Muslim states, 150+ Christian states/territories, and many other ethno-national states in the world, but only to the Jewish state. Worse, anti-Zionism seeks to revoke a right Jews already have been exercising for three quarters of a century. Revoking that right would remove the Jews’ ability to defend themselves from their actively hostile, even genocidal, neighbors and enemies. Anti-Zionists thus deny Jews basic rights and protections while actively supporting those rights and protections for all other peoples (including Palestinians). Another word for that is discrimination, antisemitic by our definition.

(5) Every classic antisemite (such as the right-wing white supremacist) is also an anti-Zionist. They typically see Israel as the mechanism by which the dastardly Jews commit their world-controlling evils, so, hating the latter, they also hate the former.[11] Nor is this point restricted to extremists: anyone who dislikes Jews will likely also oppose Zionism.[12] Antisemitism strongly motivates anti-Zionism, in other words, and one will surely find antisemites among anti-Zionists. Indeed, that anti-Zionism appeals to antisemites suggests it is antisemitic “in itself”; no antisemite would be attracted to it if they believed it were good for the Jews. At bare minimum, this point confirms that antisemitism can express itself in anti-Zionism, thus refuting any who categorically reject our starting proposition. This point also raises an obvious relevant concern. If hating the Jews naturally leads one to hating Israel, wouldn’t hating Israel also naturally lead one to hating the Jews, especially given points (1) and (2) above?[13]

(6) Overt expressions of classic, right-wing antisemitism are often found even within the progressive anti-Zionist movement dominating campuses. This antisemitism starts with the Palestinians themselves, on whose behalf anti-Zionists operate:[14] the Palestinian leader, the Mufti Hajj Amin al-Husseini, collaborated with Hitler and the Nazis’ Final Solution, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas wrote a Holocaust-denying dissertation, Hamas (in its foundational charter) openly cites the same antisemitic forgery admired by the Nazis (Protocols of the Elders of Zion) and endorses the same Final Solution of Jewish genocide, etc. Anti-Israel rallies over the past year, on campuses and elsewhere, didn’t merely support that antisemitic cause but frequently included overt expressions of Holocaust denial, Holocaust inversion, and Holocaust promotion including Nazi salutes (here and here), the praise of Hitler, and calls for the “Final Solution,” with not a single “progressive” condemning them. One can no longer count the instances of graffiti’d swastikas appearing all over campuses including on Jewish students’ dorm doors over the past few years and especially since the October 7 Hamas massacre. Nor do any progressives object when leading anti-Zionists, such as University of Pennsylvania Prof. Anne Norris, like social media posts proclaiming that “Playing the victim is what Jews are best at.” Progressives themselves, such as those belonging to the many “Faculty for Justice in Palestine” chapters established in the past year, post Instagrams claiming that the “Jews own Hollywood.” When a neo-Nazi supports the Final Solution, sprays swastikas, and accuses Jews of dastardly deeds, there is no hesitation in declaring it antisemitic; it is no different when an “anti-Zionist” progressive does it.

(7) Perhaps unsurprisingly, given the above, anti-Zionism generally leads to or increases traditionally antisemitic beliefs and activities targeting Jews, per our definition.[15] Graffiti, vandalism, and physical assaults against Jews, Jewish institutions, and Jewish events on campuses and elsewhere have exploded since the October 7 massacre: campus Hillels and Chabad houses repeatedly vandalized, Jewish schools receiving bomb and death threats and being shot at, mobs protesting and vandalizing synagogues, swastikas drawn wherever Jews are, mezuzot torn from dorm doors, Jews harassed, name-called, ostracized, spat on, physically assaulted, shot and shot at, several murdered. Sometimes these are perpetrated in the name of “anti-Zionism,” but Jews on the receiving end of the violence might be excused for not distinguishing between the anti-Zionist pogrom and the anti-Jewish pogrom—nor does our definition distinguish them. Indeed, even when advertised as “anti-Zionist,” the violence nearly exclusively targets Jews, per points (1) and (2) above. Not all Zionists are Jews, but there are nearly zero reports of attacks against Zionist non-Jews; and most Jews are Zionists, so those attacking Zionists will be ready to attack most Jews.

(8) Many of the traditional antisemitic tropes falsely levied against Jews simply get transferred onto Israel; and as Jews were always seen as guilty of the worst evils of their day (Christ-killing, capitalism, racial inferiority, etc.), so, too, now Israel (with “apartheid,” “colonialism,” etc.) The preeminent Rabbi Naftali Z.Y. Berlin noted already back in the 19^th century the two core superstitions of the antisemite (later codified in the antisemitic Protocols): that all Jewish property is stolen by fraud and deceit, and that Jews, thinking themselves superior, seek to control and harm all others. Today of course the major anti-Zionist charges are precisely that the Jews (in Israel) are living on “stolen land,” and exercise, in their “colonialism” and “apartheid,” a system of “Jewish supremacy.” As Stephens continues the quote above, when “the charges [anti-Zionists] make against Zionists invariably echo the hoariest antisemitic stereotypes—greed, deceit, limitless bloodlust— then the distinctions between anti-Zionist and antisemite blur to the point of invisibility.”[16]^,[17]

Antisemites have always cited their “reasons” to oppose the Jews: Jews are Christ-killers, murderers of children, plague spreaders, responsible for capitalism, responsible for communism, conspiring for global domination, underminer of morality, etc. Today decent people look back on these and see them as the defamatory slanders they are, yet often fail to recognize them as such when they are updated to apply to modern-day Israel.[18]

(9) The open support for Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and their patron Iran that permeates the campus anti-Zionist movement cannot be construed any other way than as antisemitic. These are not “human rights” organizations aiming to bring freedom and equality to the poor oppressed Palestinians; they do not even believe in human rights, neither for their own people nor anyone else, but are instead homophobic, misogynist, intolerant, anti-diversity Islamist jihadi supremacist hate groups seeking for Islam to conquer the world, who oppress their own subjects mercilessly and endorse the murder of all Jews on earth as longstanding enemies of their extremist theocracy, literally since the 7^th century CE. These groups are fighting not for rights or liberation but to exterminate the Jews in the name of Islam, and say so openly, and repeatedly, and all their behavior demonstrates it. Hamas’s foundational charter, never revoked, states that Islam is at war with the Jews, declares that Islam will obliterate Israel, and quotes Islamic holy writ endorsing the murder of all Jews. Now deceased Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah (i) refers to Jews (via Islamic scripture) as the “sons of apes and pigs,” (ii) said “If we search the entire globe for a more cowardly, lowly, weak and frail individual in his spirit, mind, ideology and religion, we will never find anyone like the Jew—and I am not saying the Israeli,” and (iii) said that God created Israel so the Jews would be gathered in one place, to save Hezbollah “from having to go to the ends of the world" to kill them. The Houthis’ official motto, emblazoned on the flags that some campus anti-Zionists enthusiastically wave, is “Allah is the Greatest, Death to America, Death to Israel, A Curse Upon the Jews, Victory to Islam.” Hamas and Hezbollah have spent decades acting on their genocidal aspirations, culminating in the October 7 massacre and the year of Hamas warfare, terrorist attacks, and Hezbollah bombardment since. To support these movements, as the campus anti-Zionist movement openly does today, is to support their Jewish genocidal aspirations. Needless to say, calls for, and active attempts toward, the mass murder of Jews appear to be antisemitic. More than mere “hostility” toward Jews, per our definition, if supporting much less committing mass violence against Jews is not antisemitic, then it’s hard to imagine what is.

(10) Given the current context—Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis, and Iran pursuing religious jihad attempting to murder Jews on a massive scale—then almost any even mild criticism of Israel now, no matter how true or otherwise legitimate, de facto amounts to supporting that jihadist endeavor. Maybe some or even many progressive anti-Zionists do not really want to mass murder the Jews, but their anti-Zionism, in this current context, amounts to supporting that very program. If the mass murder of Jews is at least prima facie antisemitic, then progressive anti-Zionism supporting that outcome is prima facie antisemitic, no matter what theoretical contortions activists may make to deny it. Indeed actions that in other contexts might not be antisemitic at all—including activism for Palestinian rights, efforts to obtain a ceasefire, supporting a Palestinian state, etc.—in this context amount to supporting the antisemitic jihadist agenda. And full-throated anti-Zionism, such as calling to dismantle the Jewish state when efforts to violently dismantle it in the name of genocidal jihad are actively under way, cannot be seen otherwise than as supporting that jihad.

Taken together, these points illustrate the many points of contact, the multi-level entanglement, between anti-Zionism and antisemitism. They thus provide a preponderance of evidence that anti-Zionism simply is antisemitism or antisemitic. “On the face of it,” then, one’s default assumption should be that it is, barring compelling evidence otherwise in some particular case or another.

But there’s more, as we turn to analysis.

[To Be Continued…] [The second installment may be found here.]

---

[1] Consider the famous 1899 correspondence between Theodor Herzl and Yousef al-Khalidi, where the latter acknowledged that “Who can contest the rights of the Jews in Palestine? My God! Historically, it is your country!” but concluded, given the foreseeable violent local opposition, “In the name of God, leave Palestine alone!”

[2] The line between “principle” and “practice” here can be blurry. Some anti-Zionists argue that if realizing Zionism as narrowly defined required (for example, per their allegations) “ethnic cleansing,” then “ethnic cleansing” becomes part of the definition of Zionism. There are many things wrong with this argument, but we can leave it aside and allow the “principle/practice” distinction to remain blurry.

[3] In my opinion this allegation is ludicrous: IHRA itself explicitly exempts legitimate criticism of Israel from being antisemitic, doesn’t call for silencing anybody, and the question whether it accurately captures antisemitism is entirely separate from subsequent decisions, for example by university administrators, whether they want to censure antisemitic activism.

[4] For analysis see Cary Nelson here and here, and Elder of Ziyon here.

[5] That point is actually a vote in favor of IHRA, which was formulated without any political intentions, in contrast to (say) Nexus and Jerusalem which clearly had the political motive to protect anti-Zionism from IHRA.

[6] We’ll note the necessity that the hostility etc. are ultimately unjustified, suggest explicitly including “violence,” emphasize the antisemitic application of “double standards” to the Jews, and note that sometimes antisemitism can manifest itself in what antisemites do not do or say.

[7] Put differently: speaking of “Israel” need not denote Jews (since not all Israelis are Jews, etc.), but in most contexts, most of the time, it connotes Jews.

[8] See the discussion of the recent “Drop Hillel” movement below.

[9] As we’ll explore below, in fact it is clear that many anti-Zionists are not actually “pro-Palestinian,” as can be seen in their general disinterest in Palestinian welfare except when Jews are involved. Anti-Zionists similarly claim their motivations are “pro-human rights,” equally easy to disprove by their general disinterest in human rights issues except when Jews are involved. Here it is what they do not do that reveals the antisemitism: not advocating for Palestinians or human rights elsewhere suggests their motivation is really to harm the Jews.

[10] Contrast advocating for a “two-state solution” with advocating to replace Israel with a single state of Palestine. The former is not “anti-Zionist” by our definition, and is also much harder to identify as antisemitic than the latter.

[11] Though less widely acknowledged, the point applies to Islamic antisemites as well: the long and deep history of Islamic antisemitism arguably contributed significantly to the Palestinian Arabs’ early resistance to modern political Zionism.

[12] An illustrative example occurred at Stanford in 2016. During a student government Israel-debate, one anti-Israel senator suggested that “Jews controlling the media, economy, government and other societal institutions” was “a very valid discussion.” Though presumably no white supremacist, this antisemite was unsurprisingly an anti-Zionist.

[13] See also point (7) below.

[14] We return to this point in section (7c), point (d) below.

[15] AMCHA Initiative has done several studies supporting this claim, for example here, here, here, and most recently here. The Anti-Defamation League’s 2024 study found a similar result.

[16] And indeed they do, as Elder of Ziyon summarizes in a chart. Echoing R. Berlin, Stephens also observes elsewhere: “The fundamental political argument of the European antisemite is that Jews are imposters and swindlers — imposters for claiming to be fully German, Austrian, French, and so on when they are actually “Semitic” — swindlers for using all their cunning and power to deprive authentic Europeans of their wealth, power, and patrimony. Anti-Zionists make the same claim about Jewish Israelis: that they are imposters for claiming an indigenous connection to the Land of Israel when really, they are latter-day European colonialists, and swindlers for trying to take from Palestinians what, supposedly, is rightfully theirs. This is why anti-Zionism … is a modern-day version of antisemitism: It is an attempt to organize politically and ideologically against Jews by employing the same false charges. The only difference is that, to the European antisemites of the 19th or early 20th century, the Jew is from the Holy Land; to the anti-Zionists of the late 20th and early 21st century, the Jew is from Europe.”

[17] Abba Eban also summarizes well: “There is no difference whatever between antisemitism and the denial of Israel’s statehood. Classical anti-semitism denies the equal right of Jews as citizens within society. Anti-Zionism denies the equal rights of the Jewish people its lawful sovereignty within the community of nations. The common principle in the two cases is discrimination.”

[18] Perhaps in later generations some will look back and see today’s “anti-Zionist” allegations (Israeli genocide, ethnic cleansing, etc.) as just the latest iterations of this long antisemitic tradition of defaming Jews. We’ll return to this issue below.

1. It also offers no explanation or analysis of just how or why its Israel-related examples fit its vague definition, thus offers no defense for including those examples.

2. A historical note, for the articulation of which I’m much indebted to Fred Baumann. The term “antisemitism” was originally coined as a way for Jew-haters who were no longer Christians to justify hating Jews for a secular reason, based on racial pseudo-science. Jews were no longer to be hated for their religion, but as "semites," for their race. Thus Proudhon wrote in his private notes that the Jews should be sent back to Asia (with the other semites) or, if they stayed in Europe, be exterminated with fire and steel. So construed, anti-Zionism is another, different, and almost opposite way of hating Jews. Now, after European Jews were exterminated by fire and steel (as Proudhon wished), Jews are hated because they have gone back to Asia (as Proudhon also wished.) Since they still have to be hated, another excuse has to be found. Anti-Zionism thus objects to exactly what historical antisemitism claimed to want. So, historically speaking, antisemitism and anti-Zionism are opposites and quite distinct. What they share, of course, is that they are both forms of Jew-hate. But today “antisemitism” no longer has that narrow meaning for most people, and really just is a sanitized word for “Jew-hate”—and per Elder of Ziyon’s definition, both the racial way and the anti-Zionist way of hating Jews can (and do) fall under it.