Published: 23 October 2024
Last updated: 28 October 2024
THE QUESTION: SHOULD WE RETIRE THE WORD 'ZIONISM'?
Yes: the word Zionism is obsolete and unhelpful to contemporary Israel
Israel is now a state with a strong economy, a flourishing culture and a powerful army. While the country’s domestic and international challenges are particularly acute today, they are the sorts of trials that come with statehood, particularly in a troubled and unstable region of the world. Yet by continuing to use the terms “Zionist” and “Zionism” we undermine Israel’s normalisation.
Applying the terms to modern day Israel is confusing and unclear, and it creates opportunities for distortion. The Anti-Defamation League defines Zionism as the “movement for self-determination and statehood for the Jewish people in their ancestral homeland.” But this definition makes little sense today given that statehood has long ago been achieved. It argues for the legitimacy of a country whose status should no longer be called into question.
Because it has no clear meaning in the contemporary context, many feel free to appropriate it and assign it pernicious meanings. The anti-Zionist Jewish Voice for Peace describes “Zionism” as a movement “to deny the rights of Palestinians and the humanity of Palestinians.” The BDS Movement characterizes it as a settler colonial project which is ongoing and in which every Israeli citizen is complicit. Even the United Nations defined Zionism as “a form of racism and racial discrimination” (though it later revoked this definition).
We should insist on the correct meaning of the terms. “Zionism” and “Zionist” refer to a narrow historical movement and ought not be open to interpretation or appropriation.
The word “Zionist” provides detractors a substitute for directly referencing the state of Israel. In effect, this verbal evasion denies the state’s very existence. Iran uses the term “Zionist regime,” and Hamas favors “Zionist Entity.” Few contemporary nation states face this type of repudiation, even those that have been called out for their extreme humanitarian injustices and political missteps. For its fiercest critics, Israel becomes an “ism” to be eliminated — like racism or sexism — and not an actual country with which to reckon.
Haters feel empowered to hurl labels and insults at Jews while self-righteously defending their conduct. People who might think twice before publicly pronouncing “Jews do not deserve to live” or “Death to Israel” freely express these same sentiments by simply substituting “Zionist” for “Jew” and “Zionism” for “Israel.” Then feigning innocence, they claim to have simply expressed opposition to a political philosophy and those who adhere to it.
Does dropping the use of “Zionism” concede the war of words to Israel’s critics? Does it imply a surrender of part of our heritage? No, in fact, doing so would only reaffirm Israel’s legitimacy.
“Zionist” and “Zionism” should continue to be used to refer to the movement that predated the establishment of Israel in 1948. But perhaps, in all but historical contexts, these terms should be retired from our vocabulary. This linguistic turn could be one small step towards restoring civility on university campuses and beyond.
No, Jews must reclaim the word and remind the world what it means
Calling for retiring the word Zionism, even in the interest of defending Israel, is a short-sighted response that will only backfire. The word is not only still relevant today, but it represents something vitally needed for world Jewry at this hour: Jewish pride.
Words matter. Our enemies have long used language to stoke Jew hatred. They’re doing the same thing today by turning the word Zionism into a bad word. But we cannot let them.
We get to define our own lexicon, not our adversaries. Letting our enemies tell us what Jew hatred is and what it is not.
What’s next? Jew haters will go back to the UN to attempt once again to define “Zionism as racism” — an argument the American Jewish community and government officials spent 16 years fighting to repeal — and then where will they then go from there? Will they try to turn the word “Israel” or “Jewish” into bad words too?
The attack on the word Zionism is something more nefarious in disguise: It is our enemies’ attempt to erase the Jewish connection to Zion altogether. If we allow our enemies to turn Zionism into a dirty word, then that will pave the way for them to turn the entire Zionist enterprise into a dirty movement, which will pave the way for them to discredit not just the word Zionism, but the whole Zionist project, meaning the State of Israel itself. I
If we retire “Zionism,” with all of its deep historical resonance, it will only embolden them to keep lying about the lack of Jewish connection to the land of our people.
We must stand up to our adversaries. We cannot bow to their pressure. We must show them that we are proud of our heritage, our people, and our language — including the word Zionism.
READ MORE
For the sake of Israel, it’s time to retire the word ‘Zionism’ (Alanna E Cooper and Sharona Hoffman, JTA)
No, we shouldn’t retire the word ‘Zionism.’ We should take it back. (Zack Bodner, Times of Israel)
Comments4
Joseph Silver28 October at 12:31 am
Are we going to also suggest that the hijacking of the name Palestine and the concomitant invention of Palestinianism should also be called out?
Wesley Parish27 October at 03:01 am
The problem with both those positions is that anyone with an ounce of historical knowledge, particularly of the European settler states such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Mexico, Chile, South Africa, etc, can easily pick holes in the claim that re-settling an area last under full Jewish sovereignty 2000 years ago is not colonialism. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, smells like a duck, and tastes like a duck, then obviously calling it a duck is anti-duckism. This is not clear thinking, and facing antisemitism, a lack of clear thinking is not advisable. Clinging to Zionism in the face of Zionism’s proven hostility to Palestinians, and to Arab Jews – anybody understand the meaning of the “Yemeni babies” scandal? In the light of the Stolen Generations? – is painting a ginormous target on the backs of Jewish communities world-wide.
Rachel Sussman25 October at 07:00 am
The last thing we Jewish people must do is to ‘retire’ Zionism. Doing so or even suggesting to do so clearly and sadly indicates our total failure to learn the lesson of 7/10 and the lesson resulting the world’s response. The lesson is clear my friends: We Jews will forever have to defend ourselves, our right to exist and our right for self-determination. To suggest that since Zionism is defined as the “movement for self-determination and statehood for the Jewish people in their ancestral homeland”, and suggest that this definition makes little sense today given that statehood has long ago been achieved, and that it argues for the legitimacy of a country whose status should no longer be called into question, is nothing short of ridiculous. First because Israel’s legitimacy of existence is called into questioned every day. If it was not October 7, its following events including the world growing anti-semitism and anti-Israel stance would not come into being. Second, even if we arrive to an otopian day where Israel and the Jewish People are indeed recognised, why should we ‘retire’ something that is part of us? I think it is time for us Jews to lift our heads and stop dancing to the world’s tunes!
John Lazarus25 October at 02:18 am
Reclaim it. The biggest ralies for a ceasfire are by 750,000 Israeli Zionists. if you want to reclaim it softly get and wear a rasta T shirt with a rasta star of david and the word Zion printed on it.