It is a common rhetorical tactic to ascribe genocidal intentions to those who advocate the basic human rights of the Palestinians. This is done for two reasons: firstly, to delegitimize the broader movement and secondly, to distract from the most pressing issue at hand: the ongoing genocide in Gaza. Even if this is not the intended purpose of the article “Zionism is not a bad word,” it accomplishes both of these things. 

Equating Zionism with Judaism seems to be one of the main goals of the article. Zionism is a late nineteenth century ethno-nationalist movement to establish a Jewish state in the Levant. When people call themselves “Anti-Zionists,” this is usually in opposition to the current result of Zionism: an apartheid state, or a “regime of Jewish supremacy from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean” according to the Israeli NGO B’Tselem, Human Rights Watch, and Amnesty International. For those who don’t know, apartheid is a system of racial hierarchy, characterized by forcible segregation of different peoples, unequal application of the law, denial of basic rights and freedoms and regular and systematic violence by the apartheid regime. It has existed in many forms in Zimbabwe, South Africa and now, Israel. 

On the other hand, Judaism is an ancient Abrahamic religion of the Jewish people, with much of its history tied to the Levant, but also to the various communities that coalesced in Europe, Africa and Asia. The Jewish people survived millennia of persecution and persist today mainly in America, but also in Israel. Despite these clear differences, the previous article asserts otherwise. Of course, if Zionism and Judaism are the same, then any opposition to Zionism would automatically be antisemitism, which would make any attempt to fight Israeli apartheid and support Palestinian human rights a fundamental assault against what it means to be Jewish, according to Reinhold. 

To make the case for equating the two, Reinhold argues that Zionism is an integral part of Judaism. This is a discussion that needs to take place within the Jewish community. What I do want to lay out are some of the basic facts of the situation. I think people should be able to decide for themselves where they stand in this historic moment. 

Firstly, the polling data Reinhold put forth, from which she asserts that Zionism is an almost universally held Jewish value, does not paint a fully accurate picture. A simple Google search contradicts Reinhold’s data. According to a Pew Research survey from 2021, 58% of American Jewish adults feel somewhat or very attached to Israel, while 45% say that caring about Israel is essential to what being Jewish means to them. Among Generation Z, which is indicative of where opinion is moving, the numbers look quite different. Only 48% feel somewhat or very attached to Israel, and only 35% say caring about Israel is essential to what being Jewish means to them. Thus, the assertion that Zionism is a near universally-held Jewish value does not appear to be the case according to the data. Another, albeit older 2012 survey I found from the Public Religion Research Institute, found that 84% of American Jews identified “pursuing justice” as a key Jewish value that shaped their political beliefs. 

I think a reality people on both sides need to acknowledge is that Jewish history and thus, the destiny of the Jewish people, are inextricably linked to the history and destiny of the Palestinian people. The fact that Palestinians are in large part descended from the ancient Hebrews, the same people modern Jews descend from, seems to make people deeply uncomfortable, despite the fact that many early Zionists, including the first prime minister of Israel, believed it to be true. In recent years, racializing the differences between Palestinians and Jews has become a goal of Israel, in addition to denying the indigeneity of Palestinians, painting them as South Arabian invaders from the advent of Islam. History shows us that some Jews began worshiping the Greco-Roman pantheon in antiquity. More Jews converted to Christianity, and the remainder converted to Islam. Thus, before the advent of Zionism, these Christian, Muslim and very small Jewish populations of Palestine make up the people we call Palestinians today. The Palestinians are thus, not recent arrivals, but rather, the people who never left.

If genetics show us these are basically the same people and that Palestinians are indigenous, then wouldn’t Reinhold be correct that Jews are indigenous to Palestine? With the exception of Palestinian Jews, no However, this is largely a semantic difference, as I believe she is misusing the term. People can have historical, cultural and genetic ties to a particular region and also be colonizers, or in other words, not indigenous. The case of Liberian colonization is perhaps the best example of this. Like Jews in Eastern Europe, freed slaves in America were seen as an undesirable population by the dominant group. Thus, to fully emancipate themselves, but also to rid white people of their “problem,” colonization of a far off land was a “solution” that both white people and freed slaves supported. West Africa, like the Levant, was the land of origin from which this “undesirable” population had since been disconnected, and so with the backing of white people, both Zionists and freed slaves went out to colonize this land-for-the-taking. A strip of land in West Africa was colonized by the American Colonization Society in the 1820s. Freed slaves established a republic there shortly thereafter: Liberia. However, this republic came at the expense of the indigenous West Africans of Liberia who were denied their most basic rights. The freed slaves largely recreated the antebellum south, characterized by vast plantations, slave labor, strict segregation, and systematic underdevelopment of indigenous areas. 

In the case of Israel, this general paradigm has largely been replicated. To start, the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948 coincided with the premeditated ethnic cleansing of 700,000 Palestinians in the fog of war. According to prominent Israeli historian Benny Morris, “transfer was inevitable and inbuilt in Zionism.” Thus, this was done to ensure the demographic majority necessary for a Jewish state to exist in the region. The right of return is one of the most fundamental human rights in international law. It was reaffirmed in UNGA Resolution 194, passed in 1949, which called for Israel to allow for the return of the Palestinian refugees to Israel proper at the earliest possible date. In response, Israel closed the border and barred any refugees from returning, completing their successful ethnic cleansing campaign, known by Palestinians as the “Nakba” or catastrophe. Since then, the Palestinian refugees have been confined to destitute refugee camps in Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon and Syria. They now number in the millions. If their basic human right, the right of return, were to be implemented, it would upset the Jewish demographic majority in Israel. 

It is this event, the equal application of human rights, regardless of race, ethnicity, or religion, that many portray as a “genocide” of Jews, or use language such as “the destruction of Israel” or “Israel being wiped off the map” to describe this event. I will overlook the implicit racism and dehumanization of Palestinians inherent to this framing, as that is a whole topic in and of itself. But let us ask ourselves: When the apartheid regime in South Africa fell, and black Africans were given equal rights, would we call that event “white genocide,” “South Africa being wiped off the map,” or “the destruction of South Africa”? No. We would not. 

And despite the often violent nature of South African resistance, black people coming to power did not result in them exacting revenge fantasies on their white oppressors. Even in a scenario as violent as the Rwandan Genocide, for example, the overthrow of the genocidal and grotesquely violent Hutu-supremacist regime, did not result in Tutsis, who just faced the most horrific violence imaginable, exacting revenge fantasies after taking power. These are two examples of relatively successful peacebuilding initiatives I can think of off the top of my head, as an undergraduate with no formal qualifications. Thus, when Reinhold expresses concern for “the murder of ten million people” after Palestinians are granted their basic human rights, this is done either out of intellectual laziness, or to justify the continued inhuman treatment of Palestinians under the status quo by, intentionally or not, portraying the Palestinians as a mindless, violent horde. Peaceful solutions which do respect the human rights of Palestinians are possible. History shows us this. When people engage in this kind of rhetoric, it tells me they don’t want that kind of a solution, a solution with equal rights for all, where the Palestinian grievances can be respected, rather than suppressed and bottled up, as they have been for the past 75 years.

On a related note, speaking out on campus and on social media, attending protests, calling representatives, and engaging in boycotts of companies supporting Israel’s onslaught in Gaza absolutely makes a difference. It is basically common knowledge that Israel cares deeply about its public perception in the West. Just like apartheid South Africa, its dependence on Western support is critical and without it, the Israeli apartheid regime would likely fall, just the same as South Africa. 

This article has gone on for far too long. Unfortunately, the issue of the refugees only scratches the surface of the extent of Palestinian suffering, although it is probably the most controversial issue in the entire conflict. In the future, I hope to go into more detail on the situation in Gaza and what has happened since 1948. Moving forward, Google is a great friend to find out more. The apartheid reports from Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International are long, but super informative. A more succinct, but inexhaustive version would be the B’Tselem apartheid report, which is a good starting point for learning more. 

At the same time, I do not want this article to come off as an attack against Becky Reinhold. On the contrary, I deeply respect and appreciate the courage it took to put herself out there in such a tense environment and open herself up to criticism. While I might have come off as harsh at times, I truly believe she had the best of intentions at heart, even despite being misguided. Awareness precedes actions and I do hope this article makes people more aware of their rhetoric and more careful about using, even unintentionally, racist and Orientalist tropes towards Palestinians. I do believe we can work together as a community in pursuing justice and fighting injustice around the world.