Zionism 101
Confusion adds to chaos.
As of this writing, the October 7th War has surpassed 650 days. Israel and Gaza continue to dominate much of the world’s attention. And when the news isn’t covering the conflict directly, it’s often addressing related topics, such as the Twelve-Day War with Iran, campus protests, Houthi strikes in the Red Sea, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the New York City Mayoral race, attacks against the Druze in Syria, and so on.
The list is endless.
But the discourse is mired in confusion. From traditional news outlets, to paid subscription services, Youtube channels, podcasts, social media feeds, and everywhere else imaginable—a tremendous number of reporters, commentators, and influencers are mightily befuddled. People do not know what they’re talking about. Major editorial boards seem blind to nuance. Whole corporations come off as ignorant, or worse. Kids on TikTok spread lies they’ve unquestioningly absorbed from propagandists.
Of course, on some level we know this is happening to us. We know that the rush to publish—the rush for more clicks, more user engagement—is incentivized over fact-checking, and we know this process is corrupting our conversation. But who is going to fix that? And anyway, aren’t we doing the best we can? Aren’t we all ignorant on many subjects to begin with?
The problem is that it matters how we speak in public. Our words have repercussions; our voices add to a climate. In modern democracies, we’re pretty much free to say whatever we like, but each of us is responsible for engaging in escalation or de-escalation. Whatever one’s personal opinion regarding Israel or Gaza, and whatever the analysis or story, real journalism still requires integrity. Unserious reporting intensifies the temperature of a situation which is already incredibly dangerous. And many who are passionately well-intended don’t realize they’re making the chaos worse.
Needless to say, there are also bad actors spreading misinformation and disinformation. They want to increase divisions, to sew discord, to raise the temperature. Anti-Semitism is, of course, alive and well. But it is the confused, not the bigoted, who are the focus here.
The confusion starts at the very beginning—with the misuse of words.
So, on that note, please consider this something of a primer. This is the first in what will hopefully be a series of essays. It is an attempt to clear some of the brush. I hope you or someone you know may find it useful.
Let’s address the most widely misunderstood term of our day. What is Zionism?
Zionism: The belief that the Jewish people have the right to self-determination in their ancestral homeland.
That’s it. That’s all. That is the precondition, the basic fundament. It is the definition rooted in the foundational philosophical arguments at the birth of the Zionist movement in the 19th century.
Here are a few alternate constructions and framings which may clarify further.
An expanded and rephrased (albeit ungraceful) version of the definition: Zionism is the campaign asserting that the Jewish people, like all other peoples, are able and entitled to make decisions for themselves, to assemble together for their own purposes, to defend themselves, to form their own state, and to run their own lives generally in Eretz Yisrael (The Land of Israel).1
In a fascinating portion of history, early Zionists considered multiple locations around the world as potential options for the new Jewish state. Had the subsequent years taken a different route, and had the modern state of Israel been established in Argentina, a shortened version of the definition of Zionism—the belief that the Jewish people have the right to self-determination—might have become more commonplace. Of course, playing a “what-if” game can only get us so far, but the example illustrates that the Zionist cause is, at its core, elemental.
The definition put another way: Zionism is the belief that there should be a Jewish state. Or, slightly differently still, to reflect that in 2025 the state does exist and the belief is no longer purely aspirational: Zionism is the belief that Israel has the right to exist.
“Next year in Jerusalem” goes the prayer at the end of the Passover Seder. This simple hope, which arose following the destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem by the Romans in the year 70, signaled dual Jewish aspirations for nearly two millennia: that the Temple might once again be rebuilt, and that the Jews might one day return.
Readers new to the topic may notice that the definition of Zionism doesn’t sound overtly theological. And it’s true; though it was Jewish, Zionism wasn’t really a religious movement. There’s a reason for that.
Despite the Jewish attachment to the ancient Land of Israel—an attachment born of history as well as faith—Zionism was not a product of holy fervor; its founders were secular. In fact, many early Zionists were anti-religious.2 The conviction that Jews should re-establish a nation for themselves was born of practical necessity, as Jewish communities around the world faced perpetual persecutions and pogroms.3 Etched into Zionism’s DNA is the conclusion that, following waves of mass violence in Eastern Europe and the feeling that the project of assimilation was doomed, Jews demonstrably could not count on anyone but themselves for their safety.4
The full history of Zionism and the modern State of Israel is deep, compelling, and worthy of study. I’m not covering that history here because I want to focus narrowly on the definition of a single concept. But it is important to touch on certain elements:
• Zionism was not purposed toward claiming the entirety of the land. There have been individuals and subgroups who held maximalist views, but opting for pragmatism and compromise has been the mainstream Zionist approach since the beginning. This trend continued every time there were opportunities for two-state solutions.
• Zionism has many offshoots and branches. There are varying schools of thought, some radically different from others. The same is true of Judaism, and of religions and political movements generally.
• Zionism is not a blanket endorsement of the Israeli government. This final point is so widely misunderstood and misrepresented in Western media that it is worth lingering on. The majority of Israelis and Jewish people around the world today are Zionists. The same majority also have extensive concerns regarding Prime Minister Netanyahu and his coalition. Criticism of the government can be found throughout mainstream Israeli and Jewish outlets.
Reality in the Jewish state, as in any other nation, is complicated: a majority of Israelis support the war goals of disarming Hamas and rescuing the hostages—but many disagree with aspects of the war, or with how the war’s priorities are translated into action, or with military strategies, or with the conduct of specific soldiers. Many feel the war has gone on too long. And beyond the war, Israelis routinely protest the government over myriad political topics in daily life—notably, the intensely controversial judicial overhaul.
But multitudes in the West commit this basic error: they assume that Zionism—the belief in Jewish self-determination, the belief that Israel has the right to exist—equates to categorical support of the Israeli government. They follow this to another erroneous assumption: that “anti-Zionism” must be something along the lines of “criticism of Israeli policy.” But that is not what anti-Zionism means.
Anti-Zionism is the belief that the world’s only Jewish state should not exist; that the Jewish people do not have the right to self-determination. An anti-Zionist is a person who believes that the Jews—unlike all other peoples—must not have their own nation. That is what anti-Zionism necessarily entails at the bare minimum.5
Being a “patriotic American” is not an across-the-board endorsement of any American President, or any specific administration. Plenty of Americans who regard themselves patriots dislike Trump and his cabinet. This isn’t new. In 2003 the launch of the Iraq War was celebrated by some patriotic Americans and condemned by other patriotic Americans.6 The phenomena wasn’t new then, either.
In democracies, public debate is a feature, not a bug. It isn’t unusual in the United States, or Australia, or Great Britain, for citizens to argue over everything under the sun freely and openly and vociferously. That’s politics. But it is odd that so many in those same countries view Israelis as being of one mind.
Confusion has muddied these waters. But well-intended and responsible voices can be more careful ensuring their own words—however critical—don’t contribute to the spread of dangerous libels. A Zionist is a person who believes the State of Israel should exist. That person’s Zionism says nothing about their politics, their personality, or even their level of faith.
Israelis are not a monolith. They never have been. They have disagreements which are profound and vast and heartfelt and complicated. These disagreements are sometimes even irreconcilable.
Just like any other country.
This territory has been known by many names: the Kingdom of Israel, the Southern Levant, the Land of Canaan, Ottoman Syria, the region of Palestine, and others.
Many pre-state Jewish migrants were socialists and egalitarian labor activists. Some were outright Zionists, some merely intent on escaping anti-Jewish oppression in the hope of better lives. These people built the early kibbutzim, agricultural collectivist communes.
Götz Aly’s book Europe Against the Jews is an excellent study of this era.
Though history is full of campaigns targeting Jews, the specific events which gave rise to Zionism (as argued by pioneering thinkers such as Theodor Herzl and Leon Pinsker) began in the 1800s. These events continued into the 20th century, strengthening the Zionist sense of urgent necessity. The 1948 founding of Israel was not, as is sometimes assumed, a consolation prize for the horrors of World War II—as the push to establish a new Jewish state was already well underway by that time. Several important touchstones during this period include the 1881 assassination of Russian Emperor Alexander II (and especially its aftermath), the Dreyfus Affair, and the 1903 Kishinev pogrom.
This definition of anti-Zionism is a bit charitable. Often, and perhaps in a majority of cases, “anti-Zionism” functions in practice as chic intellectual camouflage for bigots. However, it is also true that many across the world—especially in the West—do not hate Jews but have imbibed the idea that “anti-Zionism” is simply another legitimate variety of human rights campaign. Again, this trend has reached new heights in the age of social media, and the well-intended-but-confused do not know what they’re signing up for. For those individuals, it is necessary to strip the word down to what it can only mean at its best—and at its base.
At the time, slogans which beamed with American pride while simultaneously communicating wildly contrasting sentiments, such as “Support our troops” versus “It is patriotic to protest”, could be seen everywhere.