Why Anti-Zionism is Really Antisemitism

You may hear someone claim one day that anti-zionism is not anti-semitism.

An anti-semite, this person will claim, is a racist, someone who has something against the jews specifically as a race, not even necessarily against Israel as a country.  Such a person holds to a theory that some races are worse or better than others and/or that some races are dangerous, bad, etc, some races are good, etc.   Jews, they say, are bad.   Among the officially recognized Anti-Semitic (that is, anti-Jewish) groups are the KKK, the NAZI party, Hezbollah and the PLO, ISIL/ISIS, the Ayatollah, etc.

An anti-Zionist is someone who disagrees with the establishment of the Israeli State and does not believe that the Jewish People should have a homeland and/or that the Israeli State should not exist.  Such people are not necessarily against Jews living anywhere they want, per se, just against them having a homeland in Israel.   They are not against the Jewish people being alive nor do they believe that Jews are lesser than other people or in some way intrinsically bad.   Among the official groups that are anti-Zionist are the KKK, the NAZI party, Hezbollah and the PLO.

( It should strike one as interesting that the prominent famous groups of anti-semites and anti-zionists are the same people.   )

But today I want simply to show that there are no legitimate non-racist arguments for anti-zionism and then show that all the typical reasons for accepting anti-zionism are anti-Semitic.

But first, a little straight history.   The United Nations resolution 181 establish legally an Israeli and Palestinian State as the British Protectorate of Palestine was dismantled after World War II and the Jews, fleeing Europe, were welcomed by the British run Palestine.   The new nation was quickly superseded by the results of what is called a "civil war" but in fact a war between the Palestinian and Israeli forces.  The Israeli forces were overwhelmingly successful and by 1948 after what is called the Arab Israeli War the Israeli forces had complete military control of what is modern day Israel despite heavy interference from foreign sources against them.

Immediately thereafter Palestinian groups began a terrorism campaign that has lasted to the present day in an attempt to dislodge the Israeli state at all costs.   Israel's response has been measured but often brutal and a compromise has currently establish the Gaza Strip region as an Arab-Palestinian controlled Zone currently controlled by Hezbollah who's charter includes the annihilation of the Israeli State and the death of all Jews.  This ideology is backed by a religious determination that failure to assent to this goal is a failure worthy of hell and such people will not enter heaven according to the Shia-Muslim clerics of the Palestinians.

Meanwhile, the Israeli state includes about 21% (1.6M people) Palestinian Arabs living in Israel as citizens mostly peacefully with full legal rights, and vigorously defends its borders with mandatory military service for citizens and generous assistance from the US Government as a foothold satellite military operation in the Middle East for use as political pressure against Arab States as desired by the US Government mostly.


Now that we get the history, the questions:

#1 Is the Israeli State Legal?

Now this question is interesting because there are actual measures passed by the United Nations establishing an Israeli-Jewish state in Palestine, and given that there is no higher human authority on earth, the unequivocal legal answer is a resounding yes.  Israel has a seat in the United Nations, is an active participant in the international community and is a regular commerce partner with many neighboring Mediterranean nations both Arab and otherwise.  They maintain treaties and diplomatic relations throughout the world and have most favored nation status specifically with the USA.

But someone who questions the legality of the Israeli State is aware of these facts, but still questions the legal legitimacy of Israel's establishment.  They say, sometimes, that the use of violence in the creation of a state makes it illegitimate, or that the way Israel was formed was somehow "nefarious".

Now it may be the case that Israel's formation was nefarious in some way, and it is definitely the case that Israel's establishment was bloody.   However, this does not differentiate the Israeli state from nearly every other country in the world.  India's oldest book, the Baghvad Gita describes the adventures of a prince of India in the course of conquest.     The ancient Egyptians conquered their lands.  Ceasar conquered nearly 1/5 of the world.  The British Crown is responsible for more deaths of indigenous people than nearly anyone other than the United States themselves which ruthlessly and with complete disregard for human life  killed, cheated and stole land from the American Natives that possessed North America before them.

This is to say, war and conquest is literally how countries are established and has always been the case.  Kings do not buy their crowns, they kill for them.

So given that all states are established by this method of conquest, how is Israel illegitimate in a way that other states are not?

#2 Is the treatment of Palestinians a moral objection to Israel's existence?

Israel's treatment of the PLO and Hamas has been essentially as criminal organizations.  People who side with Hamas and the PLO against Israel are routinely subjected to investigation, search and surveillance and sometimes deported.   Israel blockades supplies to the Gaza Strip when they believe those supplies might have military purpose (which they have discovered often do.). As a result, there is widespread poverty, lack of medication and lack of basic infrastructure and facilities in Gaza leading to immense human suffering.

Is this a moral outrage?  Yes.

Is Israel interesting in this regard?  No.

The English did this to the Irish for centuries.  The Americans are doing it to the Mexicans now.  The Chinese do it to their own people.  North Korea is isolated this way by a variety of international treaties, the Vietnamese have done it, Russians have done it, French have done it, germans obviously have done it, even the Belgians had the Congo.  In short, when there are warring parties and one of them is less powerful than the other, the less-powerful party looks pitiful because we sympathize with the losing parties.   We are not wrong to do so.

Nevertheless the question boils down to whether or not this aspect of Israel's existence makes it necessary that we end Israel's existence or abrogates their basic right to existence.  The two questions are separate.

If every state that was guilty of war crimes were considered illegitimate, there would be literally no countries.   Not even the Vatican.  Not a single country would still exist especially not the United States.

Does the current state of evil in Israel necessitate military action by a good nation?  I'm not sure, the United States could solve this problem directly by killing every person in Israel and Gaza.  Would that be ideal?   Short of doing that, what would we have to do?  Would it be enough to cut Israeli funding?  Would that actually stop the violence?  Would it make it worse?  Would handing Israel to the Arab nations to finally fulfill their stated goal of Death to Israel be a moral choice?

If it would be for Israel, it would be doubly-so for the United States who perpetrates as much evil every day.  For instance, we've incarcerated more than 15,000 children who've committed no crime and separated them permanently from their parents make us the biggest known child trafficking ring.  Does this moral failing on the part of the United State oblige other countries to invade us?

#3 The Ethno-Nationalist nature of the Jewish State makes it Racist

That's partially true!  Except of course, 21% of Israeli Citizens are Arab-Palestinians and there is no prohibition for their admission as citizens except that they are required to serve in the Military and as a result pledge obedience to their commanding officers and allegiance to Israel (which prevents many Arabs from becoming citizens because of the religious requirement mentioned before).

Around 70% of Israeli citizens are ethnic Jews.  The rest are a mix of Christians, Muslims, Sufi, etc. and a variety of other local religions and non-religious people.

This demographic is not unlike the United States which is 70% of European Descent, or Great Britain which is 87% Anglo Saxon or Germany which is 75% German but better than China which is 99% Chinese...  That is to say, while having a ethno-state isn't wonderful, it certainly is not unique to Israel.

Which brings us to the basic point.

The reason that the Israeli State is bad because it is an ethno-nationalist state is because it is an ethnically Jewish State.

The reason that the Israeli State was not formed "legally" was because it is an ethnically Jewish State.

The reason that the Israeli State's treatment of its sworn enemies is evil is because it is an ethnically Jewish State.

This is to say, all the supposed justifications for anti-zionism are equally leveled at every nation on the earth, but Israel is constantly singled out for one real reason - Some People Dislike Jews because of their Race and Culture.

So for those of you looking to get in on "criticizing Israel not Jews" sort-of dogma, in the great words of Israel's greatest teacher, Yeshua Messiach ben David, "Get the Log out of your own eye before trying to get the splinter out of your brothers."