Connect with us

RSS

Anti-Zionism Is an Abhorrent Ideology Regardless of Antisemitism

Worshipers pray in distance from each other at the Western Wall in Jerusalem’s Old City, amid coronavirus restrictions, March 26, 2020. Photo: Reuters / Ammar Awad.

The claim that “anti-Zionism is not antisemitism” is often used as a defense by anti-Israel activists. Even if this were true — and in most cases, it is not — the claim still presupposes that by virtue of not being antisemitic, anti-Zionism is therefore a normal and legitimate political position.

Anti-Zionism, however, is a fundamentally illegitimate and abhorrent ideology in its own right.

Having fulfilled its purpose with the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, and its acceptance at the United Nations, “Zionism” means that the Jewish State should continue to exist — like every other internationally-recognized country.

The term Zionism has no relevant meaning anymore, besides upholding the continued existence of Israel.

The “anti-Zionist” movement today demands the opposite. Aside from being an explicit rejection of the entire post-World War II international order in its call to destroy a long-standing UN member state, anti-Zionism is functionally a call for the death, expulsion, or subjugation of all Israel’s Jewish citizens.

As the Jews would not go quietly without a fight, it is also functionally a call for the death and displacement of millions of Arabs in Gaza, the West Bank, and Lebanon.

Some ardent anti-Zionists argue that their cause is just another “national liberation movement,” akin to anti-apartheid activism in South Africa, and anti-colonial independence movements elsewhere. This is a severely flawed analogy for a variety of reasons, not least because these movements never called for the destruction of the metropoles they were connected to, or, in the case of South Africa, for the destruction of the country.

The only contemporary parallel with anti-Zionism is the Russian imperial attitude towards Ukraine, and consequent genocidal attempt to destroy it. However, anti-Zionism, unlike Russian imperialism, is a global and popular ideology, and is therefore a unique phenomenon in world affairs.

Anti-Zionism should be as beyond the pale as Russia’s imperialist desire to destroy Ukraine, yet anti-Zionism is treated as a normal political opinion. It is notable that, alone among ideologies, peoples, and states, only Jewish national identity and the existence of a Jewish State is so widely impugned across the world.

The despicable ideology of anti-Zionism comes in two variants, both of which are based on distinct delusions that nevertheless would lead to the same horrific outcome.

The first and more honest of these strains is that of the Arab and Muslim world, which generally believes, incorrectly, that all Israeli Jews are foreign “colonialists” and therefore all dual citizens with second passports, and that if they are killed and terrorized enough, the remainder will eventually decide it is not worth the trouble and return to their countries of origin.

In fact, 20% or less of Israel’s population have more than one passport; most Israelis were born there and have never lived anywhere else. Additionally, Israelis have no common country of origin, and no country would be willing to take in millions of Jewish refugees. Finally, Jewish national identity is real, and Jews are deeply attached to Israel, so Israelis will fight resolutely and, because they have nowhere to go, desperately in its defense.

This strain of anti-Zionism, which encompasses almost the entire Palestinian national movement, has made it quite clear for decades in word and deed that the entirety of the land “from the river to the sea” must be cleansed of Jews, one way or another.

The October 7 massacre and kidnapping and the consequent humanitarian crisis in Gaza as a result of Israel’s defensive war against Hamas are the direct result of this strain of anti-Zionism. So is the entire nearly century-long Palestinian predicament. Anti-Zionism, not Zionism, has been the cause of every Palestinian refugee and death since before the establishment of Israel.

The second strain of anti-Zionism is the even more delusional Western form, the advocates of which insist that all they want is to dissolve Israel into a single “democratic” state of Palestine, with equal rights for both Jews and Arabs. Of course, there is no prospect of any such “democratic” Palestine: only the brutal, theocratic dictatorship of the terrorist organization Hamas or the thuggish autocracy of the PLO.

These Western anti-Zionists are apparently unaware that fewer than 10% of Palestinians support such a goal. Moreover, not only is much of the Palestinian national movement eliminationist, as mentioned above, but according to surveys on traditional antisemitic beliefs unrelated to Israel or its activities, Palestinians are among the most antisemitic people in the world.

Why Israel’s Jews would repudiate their national identity and suicidally dissolve their state to become a minority among such a people, is a question these anti-Zionists appear too detached from reality to answer.

The bottom line is that Israel has existed as a legal fact for 75 years, and calling for its destruction or dissolution is extreme, immoral, illegitimate, and a recipe for endless violence.

If the massacres and kidnappings on October 7 and the humanitarian consequences of Israel’s war of self-defense in Gaza are not desirable outcomes — and if people still believe in the international order and the illegitimacy of advocating genocide and the destruction of recognized UN member states — then anti-Zionist advocacy of any sort must be socially and politically stigmatized regardless of whether anti-Zionism is considered antisemitic.

Oved Lobel is a policy analyst at the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC).

The post Anti-Zionism Is an Abhorrent Ideology Regardless of Antisemitism first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Continue Reading

RSS

In Gaza, Hamas Is Medea

Displaced Palestinians, fleeing northern Gaza due to an Israeli military operation, move southward after Israeli forces ordered residents of Gaza City to evacuate to the south, in the central Gaza Strip September 14, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Mahmoud Issa

In Greek mythology, Medea does the unthinkable. Pursued by her father, Aeetes, and his fleet, she turns on the person closest to her — her own brother, Absyrtus. She drives a sword into his side, then tears apart a body “made of her own flesh.” She places his head and hands in sight of her father’s ship; the rest she scatters across the shore. Aeetes, shattered by grief, must stop to gather the remains while Medea escapes.

The Romanian writer Vintila Horia, in his novel God Was Born in Exile, lingers on this moment. Medea, he writes, was “a plaything of the gods, who drive men to commit these hateful acts so that they can then punish them more effectively.”

Myths survive because they illuminate universal human behaviors. They are metaphors dressed as stories — allegories of devices we see repeated again and again. And in this case, the echoes are uncomfortably clear.

Today, Palestinian leaders, whether from Hamas, Fatah, Islamic Jihad, or the PFLP, play Medea’s role. They sacrifice their own people for survival, for wealth, for ideology. Absyrtus is the Palestinian people themselves: torn apart, scattered, turned into propaganda fragments. And the West becomes Aeetes, chasing after the wreckage, desperate to collect the consequences, always behind.

The “gods” are not divine. They are the powers who exploit Palestinians as pawns: Syria, Iran, Qatar, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and others. Wrapped in the cloak of a politicized Palestinian identity that seems to grant immunity, leaders and patrons have stolen aid, enriched themselves, and justified repression: homophobia, misogyny, fanaticism, antisemitism, corruption, and endless violence. The cloak also serves to extract concessions abroad — political, diplomatic, and economic.

Meanwhile, Aeetes, the West, pursues the trail. Responsibilities, negotiations, and concessions pile up. Security and rights recede. Appeasement, apologies, and money flow in, offered up as if tolerance alone could undo the crime.

Medea, in this story, is embodied by the Palestinian leaders and their minions. They are directly responsible for the theft, for the indoctrination, and for the tactic Khaled Meshal himself described: sacrificing their own people to wound, however briefly, the image of the Jewish State. Each “martyrdom,” each “jihad,” is sold as a step toward eliminating Israel.

Absyrtus is the people — trapped in a machinery of violence, indoctrination, victimization, and offering, for which UNRWA bears immense responsibility. Reduced to faces on campaign posters, to slogans shouted in Paris, Madrid, or American universities, their deaths are paraded before the world as bait. The West does not insist that Hamas be removed from power — so that the war will end; hospitals, schools, and mosques won’t be turned into fighting locations; and Palestinian civilians won’t be used by their government as human shields. Instead, the West, like Aeetes, dutifully chases after the violent repercussions of Hamas’ tactics, convinced that appeasement, tolerance, and aid can somehow reassemble what their leaders have destroyed.

This ritual has a lineage. From the “Grand Mufti” of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, and the Muslim Brotherhood’s Hassan al-Banna, down to Hamas today, the line runs long and unbroken. Death and hostage releases become theater, staged to desensitize their own people and foreign spectators alike.

Above all, Palestinians are sacrificed for a radical Islamist project of religious totalitarianism that seeks to advance westward, unopposed and unquestioned. This is what Hamas represents, and that is the true tragedy: not simply that people die, but that their deaths are wielded as weapons, as theater, and as excuses for hatred.

So long as the West keeps gathering the carnage that has been left behind, it will remain trapped in the tragedy. The only way out is to name the crime and hold the true Medeas to account.

Marcelo Wio is a Senior Analyst at CAMERA’s Spanish Department.  

Continue Reading

RSS

Exposed: AP Freelancer in Gaza Praised Palestinian Terrorist Who Killed 37 Jews

Students at the Dalal Mughrabi Elementary Mixed School, which was built with funds from the Belgian government. (Photo: Facebook)

If the Associated Press (AP), one of the world’s largest news agencies, had done its due diligence before hiring Palestinian photojournalist Ismael Abu Dayyah, it would have seen him praising terrorists and posting anti-Israel content online.

Instead, Abu Dayyah was employed to report on the war in Gaza for the AP in 2024, and the agency still sells his images.

His social media activity, however, casts a shadow over his objectivity and the AP’s hiring practices, which comes at a time when global media outlets are promoting an ongoing campaign on behalf of Gazan journalists.

Abu Dayyah used the social media platform X to glorify Palestinian terrorist Dalal al Mughrabi, who was responsible for the deadliest attack against Israeli Jews before the October 7, 2023, Hamas massacre.

Abu Dayyah also praised the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) — a proscribed terror group responsible for dozens of attacks against Israelis over the decades, including suicide bombings, rocket attacks, shootings, and in 2014, the barbaric murder of five Jewish worshippers in a synagogue in Jerusalem. He also celebrated its member Laila Khaled, who hijacked an airplane en route to Tel Aviv in 1969.

Abu Dayyah also posted content showing his profile picture on a map of Israel with a caption calling for the liberation of Jerusalem. Other posts by him called Hamas hostages “prisoners,” and labeled the establishment of a Jewish state as “Zionist Colonialism.”

Praise for Terrorists

In a post from March 2021, Abu Dayyah wrote:

And “Dalal Mughrabi” remains the bride of Palestine who chose resistance as her path and the homeland as her beloved, the legend who surpassed all military ranks. – Anniversary of martyrdom 11_March_1978.

Dalal Al Mughrabi was a Fatah terrorist responsible for the horrific 1978 massacre of 37 Jews, among them 12 children, in what was the deadliest terror attack in Israel’s history — until Hamas’ October 7 massacre.

Al Mughrabi led the “Coastal Road Massacre,” as it became known, when she and a group of terrorists infiltrated Israel from Lebanon, hijacked a passenger bus, and detonated it with explosives near Tel Aviv.

But for the AP’s Abu Dayyah, she is an icon. And he has been consistent in celebrating the anniversary of her “heroic” death not only in 2021, but also in previous years.

In 2022, Abu Dayyah also posted praise for Palestinian terrorist Leila Khaled and the PFLP:

Leila Khaled, who is still a PFLP member and regularly calls for violence against Israel, took part in the 1969 hijacking of a TWA flight from Rome to Tel Aviv. A year later, she was part of a two-person team that attempted to hijack an El Al flight from Amsterdam to New York City.

By celebrating her “achievements” online, Abu Dayyah actively promoted and supported terrorism. He also included hashtags delegitimizing a Jewish presence in Israel, such as “Jerusalem is Arab” and “our land wants freedom.”

Abu Dayyah has a documented history of praising, supporting, and promoting violent terrorism, and should therefore have no place in any Western media outlets, where his photos — that only show destruction and casualties in Gaza but not terrorists — promote Hamas’ narrative and serve as an outlet for his bias.

Anti-Israeli Bias

How can Abu Dayyah be expected to cover the Israel-Palestinian conflict professionally and objectively if he is also posting images that express his deep anti-Israeli bias?

In 2021, for example, as Hamas launched rockets at Israel from Gaza, he posted a picture of himself covering Israel’s map, and called for the liberation of Jerusalem.

Another propaganda post Abu Dayyah published that week showed a masked Palestinian youth protecting Jerusalem’s al Aqsa compound — located on Judaism’s holiest site — from Israeli soldiers.

And last February, Al Dayyah called Israeli hostages who were held and tortured by Hamas “prisoners” — a bias so deeply ingrained that it unsurprisingly aligns with his view that the establishment of the Jewish state was “Zionist colonialism.”

Media Hypocrisy

The AP cannot feign ignorance. HonestReporting had already exposed numerous Gaza journalists for their anti-Israel bias, at best, or Hamas membership, at worst, by the time the AP hired Abu Dayyah in 2024.

At the outset of the Israel-Hamas war, we even exposed the antisemitic social media history of the agency’s Gaza correspondent — which led to his dismissal.

So why did the AP not bother checking Abu Dayyah’s background before he was hired? Do AP bosses not believe in due diligence — which should be a given in any respectable organization?

And what do the AP and other media outlets have to say about Abu Dayyah in light of their loud campaign on behalf of Gaza journalists — many of whom share his views or work side by side with Hamas?

“When will AP acknowledge a consistent and serious problem with too many of Gaza’s media workers?” said HonestReporting’s editorial director, Simon Plosker. “Ismael Abu Dayyah didn’t even attempt to hide his extremism from his employers, and it’s clear they didn’t even bother looking. Instead of launching campaigns that ignore journalists’ links to or sympathies for Hamas, it’s high time the media addressed the elephant in the room. Neither AP nor any credible Western media should employ Abu Dayyah again, and we call on AP to publicly state that the news agency will sever ties with him.”

If a global news organization has no problem relying on biased journalists who praise the murderers of Jews, it cannot simultaneously decry their “professional” plight.

HonestReporting is a Jerusalem-based media watchdog with a focus on antisemitism and anti-Israel bias — where a version of this article first appeared.

Continue Reading

RSS

French Dishonor in New York: A Palestinian State as a Reward for Oct. 7

French President Emmanuel Macron is seen at the University of Lausanne in Switzerland. Photo: Reuters/Martial Trezzini

In late September 1938, faced with yet one more territorial demand from Adolf Hitler and gripped with fear at the prospect of another European war just after the end of the Great War, British and French leaders decided to meet with Hitler in Munich,

Although wary of Hitler and his repeated threats, Neville Chamberlain, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, and Edouard Daladier, Prime Minister of France, chose to agree to Hitler’s demand to integrate part of newly-formed Czechoslovakia — known as the Sudetenland — into his Third Reich. The Czechs had no choice but to agree to the partition, which was being imposed on them by outsiders.

Chamberlain seemed persuaded that by giving in to Hitler’s demands and having the Nazi Chancellor sign a treaty whereby he announced that he had no further territorial demands, he had brought the risk of war to an end.  He would even announce that this capitulation meant, as he put it, “Peace in our time.”

Daladier had no such illusion. Although he agreed to the treaty with Hitler, he was profoundly ashamed of the concessions he and Chamberlain had made. In fact, he was so ashamed of his behavior at Munich, that he was afraid to return to Paris. As his plane prepared to land at Le Bourget just outside of Paris, Daladier could see a very large crowd waiting for him. Fearful that the crowd might cause him harm in light of the Munich agreement, he ordered the pilot to circle the airfield and defer landing. Finally, he had no choice but to land, and he prepared to face the crowd’s hostility.

To his amazement, as he exited his plane, he was greeted by shouts of approval. He could barely believe his eyes and ears. He had feared being attacked and, instead, he was being acclaimed. His reaction was to mutter, “Ah, the fools [using a profanity]. If they only understood.” Daladier, the seasoned politician and intelligent student of history, knew very well that signing a treaty with a murderous thug like Hitler was an exercise in futility, or worse.

The experience of Prime Minister Daladier is well worth remembering as we witness the humiliating groveling of French President Emmanuel Macron in New York, as Macron — seemingly seeking to pacify a segment of France’s population — announces France’s recognition of a non-existent Palestinian State. That Macron has chosen to do this in the wake of the brutal massacre perpetrated by Hamas on Oct. 7, a massacre committed  in the name of and with the seeming approval of many Palestinians, as well as at a time when Israeli hostages remain imprisoned in the tunnels of Gaza, is truly galling.

If Macron believes that by recognizing a Palestinian state at this time he is promoting peace in the Middle East, he needs to reread the history of the Munich conference.

Just as it was obvious that Hitler was lying when he promised that, if he was given the Sudetenland he would not have any further territorial demands, so Palestinian leaders are obviously lying as they suggest that recognition of a Palestinian state might bring an end to their desire to destroy Israel.

It is very likely that, having recognized Palestinian statehood at the United Nations, Macron will be given a hero’s welcome in Paris. But that welcome will be a hollow welcome. Just as Daladier was cheered on his return from Munich, Macron will be cheered by fools. The motley crew of fools will be made up of unassimilated immigrants, radical leftists, and indoctrinated students.

Sadly, Macron, the brilliant and articulate young man who seemed so promising when he first assumed office — quite unlike Daladier, the experienced and cynical politician — may not even be able to appreciate the error of his ways. In spite of his intelligence, Macron appears unable to understand that recognition of a Palestinian state now can only appear as a reward to Hamas for the worst massacre of Jews since the Holocaust.

That is especially the case since Hamas terrorists continue their intransigence in holding hostages and refusing to lay down their arms, in spite of their evident military defeat. Macron, through his appeasement of terrorists, will simply have prolonged the agony of the very people of the region he purports to be helping and he will have made ultimate peace in the Middle East even more elusive.

Just as Chamberlain’s and Daladier’s negotiation with Hitler merely postponed the inevitable and assuredly encouraged Hitler to believe that intransigence could work, Macron’s false encouragement to the Palestinians will certainly prompt yet more violence and cost yet more lives. It will make France seem naïve and cynical.

Instead of adding luster to the history of France, Macron will have added another disappointing chapter to the roller coaster ride that is French history. In this case, as in 1938, there are plenty of fools, but potentially the greatest fool of them all may be the shameless and feckless French president himself.

Gerard Leval is a partner in the Washington, D.C. office of a national law firm. He is the author of Lobbying for Equality, Jacques Godard and the Struggle for Jewish Civil Rights during the French Revolution, published by HUC Press.

Continue Reading

Copyright © 2017 - 2023 Jewish Post & News