logo
America's Anti-Jewish Assassins Are Making the Case for Zionism

America's Anti-Jewish Assassins Are Making the Case for Zionism

The Atlantic08-06-2025
The founding father of Zionism, the modern movement to create a Jewish state, had a Christmas tree. In 1895, Theodor Herzl, the Jewish journalist who would later convene the world's first Zionist Congress, was busy lighting the holiday ornament with his family when the chief rabbi of Vienna dropped in for a visit. The cleric was not amused—but the episode helps explain what Zionism is, why it came to be, and why it still finds adherents.
Far from seeking to flee non-Jewish society, Herzl—like many European Jews of his era—ardently hoped to be accepted by it. He did not circumcise his son, and initially proposed that Jews evade anti-Semitism by converting en masse to Roman Catholicism. Only after such ill omens as the rise of Karl Lueger, the Vienna mayor who would serve as inspiration to Adolf Hitler, did Herzl reluctantly conclude that Jews would never be accepted in gentile society and pivot to pursuing Jewish statehood.
Moving to a then-backwater in the Middle East was the last thing that Herzl wanted to do. It was also the last thing most Jews of his time wanted to do. Like Herzl, they simply sought to live in peace in the places they'd called home for centuries. And some, like Herzl, slowly realized that this was not going to be possible. As the historian Walter Russell Mead has put it, 'Zionism was not the triumphant battle cry of a victorious ethnic group,' but rather 'a weird, crazy, desperate stab at survival' made by those who foresaw their impending doom and despaired of other options. Seen in this context, Herzl's influential manifesto Der Judenstaat ('The Jewish State') was the 19th-century equivalent of Get Out for European Jews: a warning that well-intentioned liberalism would not save them, and that they needed to escape while they still could.
Ever since, much of the world has worked to prove Herzl right.
This past Sunday in Colorado, a man infiltrated a solidarity event for Israeli hostages in Gaza and began setting the Jews there on fire. The attack left 15 wounded, including an 88-year-old Holocaust survivor. The Boulder assault occurred just weeks after the execution of a young couple outside the Capital Jewish Museum in Washington, D.C., where a leftist extremist allegedly emptied his clip into one of the victims as she tried to crawl away. That shooting followed the attempted assassination of Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro on the second night of Passover.
The firebomber in Colorado was captured on video shouting 'end Zionists' during his rampage. The murderer in Washington produced a keffiyeh and reportedly declared, 'I did it for Gaza.' Shapiro's would-be killer told a 911 operator that he targeted the Jewish governor 'for what he wants to do to the Palestinian people.'
Although these assailants all attacked American Jews, they clearly perceived themselves as Zionism's avengers. In reality, however, they have joined a long line of Zionism's inadvertent advocates. As in Herzl's time, the perpetrators of anti-Jewish acts do more than nearly anyone else to turn Jews who were once indifferent or even hostile to Israel's fate into reluctant appreciators of its necessity.
Consider the Holocaust, the greatest anti-Jewish atrocity in modern memory. The Third Reich and its many collaborators exterminated two-thirds of Europe's Jews. At the same time, the enemies of the Nazis—including the United States and Canada—refused to let most desperate Jewish refugees into their countries. This inevitably funneled many people toward their destination of last resort: mandatory Palestine. The creation of Israel was the consequence less of Jewish choices than of all other Jewish choices being foreclosed by non-Jewish powers.
In 1948, Israel declared independence and fought off the attempt of five invading Arab armies to strangle it in the cradle. Some 800,000 Palestinians fled or were expelled from their homeland. Wide swaths of the world promptly took out their displeasure at this outcome on the Jewish populations nearest at hand. In the years following Israel's founding, nearly 1 million Jews left their ancestral homes in the Arab and Muslim world. Many fled abuse in countries such as Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, Syria, and Tunisia, where Jews were imprisoned, tortured, murdered, and stripped of their possessions, despite having lived in these places for millennia. At the time, few of these people were Zionists. They loved their home countries, which refused to love them back, and faced persecution when they arrived in Israel. Today, this Mizrahi community and its descendants comprise about half of Israel's population and form the backbone of Benjamin Netanyahu's right-wing base.
The Soviet Union, despite presenting itself as the vanguard of universal brotherhood, also turned on its Jews. The Communist police state cast the community as subversive, institutionally discriminated against its members in higher education and the professions, and labeled countless Jews who had no interest in Israel as 'Zionists.' The state executed secular Jewish artists and intellectuals under false charges, repressed observance of the Jewish faith, and threw those who protested into Gulags. Eventually, after decades of international pressure, nearly 2 million Jews were allowed to leave. More than half moved to Israel, where they would become one of Israel's most reliably conservative constituencies.
Simply put, Israel exists as it does today because of the repeated choices made by societies to reject their Jews. Had these societies made different choices, Jews would still live in them, and Israel likely would not exist—certainly not in its present form. Instead, Israel is a garrison state composed precisely of those Jews with the most reason to distrust the outside world and its appeals to international ideals, knowing that these did precisely nothing to help them when they needed it most. In this manner, decade after decade, anti-Semitism has created more Zionism. Put another way, the unwitting agents of Zionism throughout history have been those unwilling to tolerate Jews in their own countries.
Bruce Hoffman: The Boulder attack didn't come out of nowhere
Given this dynamic, a rational anti-Zionist movement would devote itself to making Jews feel welcome in every facet of life outside of Israel, ruthlessly rooting out any inkling of anti-Semitism in order to convince Jews that they have nothing to fear and certainly no need for a separate state. Such an anti-Zionist movement would overcome Zionism by making it obsolete. But that is not the anti-Zionist movement that currently exists. Instead, Israel's opposition around the globe—whether groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah or their international apologists and imitators —often seems determined to persuade those Jews who chose differently than Herzl did that he was right all along.
Attacks such as those in Colorado, Washington, and Pennsylvania, not to mention the white-supremacist massacre at Pittsburgh's Tree of Life synagogue in 2018, have raised the costs of being Jewish in America. Synagogues, schools, and other Jewish institutions collectively pay millions of dollars to secure their premises, resulting in communities that are less open to the outside and attendees being forever reminded that they are not safe even in their places of worship. And now American Jews thinking of attending communal events must stop to consider whether would-be attackers will associate them with Israel and target them for death.
America, at least, was not always this way. The country has long stood as the great counterexample to the Zionist project—proof that Jews could not just survive but thrive as equals in a pluralistic liberal democracy, without need for their own army or state. After Barbra Steinmetz, the 88-year-old Holocaust survivor in Boulder, was attacked, she had a message for the country. 'We're Americans,' she told NBC News. 'We are better than this.' That is what most American Jews and their allies believe, and the justification for that belief was evident in Colorado this week, where Jared Polis, the state's popular Jewish governor, forthrightly condemned the attack. But if the perpetrators and the cheerleaders of the incipient American intifada have their way, that spirit will be stifled.
Such a victory, however, would be self-defeating. According to video captured at the scene, the Boulder attacker accidentally set himself on fire in the middle of his assault. It would be hard to script a better metaphor for the way such violence sabotages the cause it purports to advance. If the anti-Zionist assassins succeed in making Jewish life in the United States less livable, they will not have helped a single Palestinian, but they will have made their opponents' case for them. They will have proved the promise of America wrong, and the darkest premonitions of Zionism right.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Columbia must do more to root out hate on campus — starting in the faculty lounge
Columbia must do more to root out hate on campus — starting in the faculty lounge

New York Post

time9 minutes ago

  • New York Post

Columbia must do more to root out hate on campus — starting in the faculty lounge

Columbia University's long-overdue crackdown on the dozens of students who violently took over Butler Library, and the agreement it reached Tuesday with the White House, mark significant if belated steps toward accountability. For nearly two years, these students have occupied campus buildings, spread terrorist propaganda, praised convicted terrorists, posted Nazi-style antisemitic flyers, smashed doors, disrupted classes, harassed Jewish students and openly endorsed 'liberation by any means necessary' — including the Hamas-led Oct. 7 massacre. Backed by Columbia University Apartheid Divest, a coalition of over 90 pro-terror student groups, they have platformed speakers linked to US-designated terrorists, called for the death and expulsion of Jews and Israelis, and urged Hamas to target Jewish Americans. Now they are finally facing consequences. Yet after months of calling for accountability, I take no pleasure in their expulsions and long-term suspensions. Let's be clear: the students who stormed Butler Library got exactly what they deserved. Any functioning society must mete out penalties for those who break the law, and college campuses, which play a central role in shaping young Americans, must uphold that principle. Still, as I watch the surge of anti-Jewish, anti-Israel and anti-American hate rise on campus, I can't help but ask: What if the administration had acted sooner? Could earlier intervention — as I have been calling for since Oct. 12, 2023 — have prevented this descent into terror-glorifying chaos? Could these students — many of whom came to campus with limited knowledge of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict — have avoided radicalization if the university had acted earlier? Would it have been spared its current reputation as a hub of antisemitic and anti-American extremism? It shouldn't have taken lawsuits, federal scrutiny and campus-wide chaos for Columbia's leadership to finally do the right thing. But now that the administration finally seems ready to take antisemitism and support for terrorism seriously, the effort mustn't stop with students. If these disciplinary actions are more than just a PR stunt — unlike the quiet reversal of suspensions after the violent Hamilton Hall takeover and the administration's habit of speaking out of both sides of its mouth — then the university must confront the source of the ideology that fueled this movement. Because the truth is these students didn't invent this hatred; they learned it on campus. They were radicalized by Columbia professors who called Oct. 7 a 'military action,' who expressed 'jubilation and awe' at the rape, murder and torture of Israeli civilians and who cheered on their violent takeover of university buildings. Many of them tenured and untouchable, they've long escaped consequences. But if Columbia is genuinely committed to solving this crisis, it must begin by holding faculty members accountable for their role in fueling campus unrest — and addressing the ideology behind their students' actions. Columbia, like many North American universities, has become a breeding ground for what I call 'American Intellectual Antisemitism,' a belief system that casts Jews as white settler-colonialists conspiring to ethnically cleanse Palestinians in an effort to create a Jewish supremacist ethnostate. Unlike the loud, swastika-waving hatred of the far right — with its grotesque and conspiratorial caricatures of Jews as society's omnipotent parasites — academia's insidious form of antisemitism cloaks itself in scholarly jargon and moral pretense. Dressed up in flimsy scholarship and ideological distortions, it rewrites history, ignores archaeological and scholarly records and reframes violence as justice. By manipulating words like 'oppression' and 'decolonialization,' it recasts ancient bigotry into fashionable academic critique — but make no mistake, it is antisemitism all the same. Unless Columbia directly confronts the professors who indoctrinate students into this worldview, its crisis will only deepen. While students like Mahmoud Khalil (who still refuses to condemn Hamas for slaughtering civilians) and Mohsen Madawai (who once led a Fatah student group and praised his cousins in the Palestinian Islamic Jihad) are the public face of this movement, its true architects are the professors. The responsibility — and the blame — rests with them. The surge of illegal pro-Hamas encampments on American campuses last year revealed that, left unchecked, campus unrest can quickly escalate into a national crisis. The question now is not only what actions Columbia will take to pull this bigotry out by its roots, but whether other universities will learn from its grievous mistakes. At a time when antisemitism and support for terrorism are reaching record highs, one thing remains crystal clear: What begins in the faculty lounge doesn't always stop at the campus gates. It's time to confront the academic machinery that fuels this hatred and dismantle it at the source. Shai Davidai is an activist, podcaster and former professor at Columbia University who is currently writing a book on American Intellectual Antisemitism.

Connor From Jubilee Video Lost Job, Asks For Money
Connor From Jubilee Video Lost Job, Asks For Money

Buzz Feed

time9 minutes ago

  • Buzz Feed

Connor From Jubilee Video Lost Job, Asks For Money

By now, you've surely seen clips of the viral Jubilee video where progressive journalist and author Mehdi Hasan debated 20 far-right conservatives. It was disturbing, to say the least. And one of the most controversial participants was Connor, a self-proclaimed fascist... ...who brought up Nazi theorist Carl Schmitt to defend his stance, and then refused to condemn Nazis. The clip was shared and discussed widely across social media. During an appearance on the Rift TV podcast, Connor gave an update, saying, "Unfortunately, I lost my job as a result. No one really is to blame for that. It's just the culture that kind of exists currently, surrounding the manner in which you're canceled for voicing a ... heterosexual, Christian, sort of moral belief." On the podcast, he said he condemns "the persecution of anyone, Jews included," but didn't want to "play" Mehdi's "game" because it was a "loaded question." After losing his job, Connor began crowdfunding on a GiveSendGo page with the title: "Fired for my Political Beliefs." He wrote, "Voicing fully legal traditional right wing political views results in real consequences. This is cancel culture and political discrimination on full display." At the time of publication, Connor has raised $36k and received 975 prayers??? Okay. People who gave donations also wrote comments supporting Connor and asking God to bless him. As you might imagine, the internet is having a field day with all this. Here's what people are saying: The entire video is up on Jubilee's YouTube page. For those of you who watched it, how did it make you feel? What are your thoughts or concerns? Share in the comments or in the anonymous form below.

Why Likud booting Edelstein will come back to bite it?
Why Likud booting Edelstein will come back to bite it?

Yahoo

time2 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Why Likud booting Edelstein will come back to bite it?

While Edelstein has given no indication of his next political move and has remained loyal to the Likud, it is not inconceivable that he seeks a new political home. Regardless of where one stands on Israel's political map – Right, Left, or Center – recent polling gives little room for optimism that a clear mandate to govern will emerge from the next elections, which will be held somewhere between late January and late October 2026. The reason for this pessimism is that the polling numbers indicate that the parties currently comprising the coalition are projected to win between 49 and 53 seats, while the Jewish opposition parties are polling between 57 and 61 seats. In other words, both sides are expected to struggle to form a stable coalition. While in 2022, Naftali Bennett and Yair Lapid were willing to form a government with an Arab party, Mansour Abbas's Ra'am, the likelihood of that dynamic repeating itself with the country on a war footing, or just beyond it, which may be the case when the elections are held, is slim. This means that the country is staring down the barrel of the same kind of political stalemate and gridlock that plagued it between 2019 and 2022, when it underwent five elections in just three and a half years. That picture does not fundamentally change even when factoring in the possible emergence of a new party led by Gadi Eisenkot, or even if he joins Yesh Atid as its head or merges with Bennett's new party. The Eisenkot effect, for the most part, has been to rearrange the furniture within the opposition bloc. It has not shifted votes from the coalition bloc to the opposition. He is not moving a table and chair from one room to another; he is simply moving them around in the same room. The key to breaking this stalemate is moving votes across the blocs, for example, persuading moderate right-wing voters currently voting for the Likud to cast their ballots for Benny Gantz's, Lapid's, or Bennett's parties. The polls, however, are not showing this dynamic taking hold. The option to form a new government may lie with a new party And that means the vehicle to move votes from one bloc to the other might be a new party with a different message. If the Likud goes ahead on Wednesday and ousts Yuli Edelstein from his position as head of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, punishing him for refusing to back a law that fails to mandate meaningful haredi (ultra-Orthodox) conscription within a reasonable time frame, then it might – with its own hands – be creating that very vehicle. Edelstein has issued no threats to leave the Likud for another party or to start a new one. Still, that possibility cannot be dismissed, especially if he is ousted from his post and performs poorly in the Likud primaries to be held before the next elections. And a poor showing in the next Likud primaries is not far-fetched, given that some within his party are accusing him of trying to bring down the right-wing government over the haredi draft issue. Edelstein joined the Likud in 2003 after the party he founded with Natan Sharansky – Yisrael B'Aliyah – merged with the Likud. He vied for a position on the Likud's list in 2006 and won the 14th slot. As the party only won 12 seats, he first entered the Knesset as a Likud MK replacement in 2007. His standing in the party grew steadily. In the 2009 primaries, he placed 12th, dropped to 18th in 2013 when the Likud ran together with Yisrael Beytenu, and then rose to third place in 2015. His peak came in the April 2019 primaries, when he captured the second slot on the party list, just behind Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. That represented the height of his influence and reflected his popularity within the party. At the time, he was serving as Knesset speaker. His fortunes began to decline, however, when – amid Netanyahu's repeated failures to form a coalition after successive elections – he flirted with the idea of challenging him for the party leadership, an idea he eventually abandoned. But the damage was done, and in the 2022 primaries, he dropped to 18th place. When Netanyahu selected his cabinet after winning the Knesset elections that year, Edelstein was conspicuously left out, only to be appointed chairman of the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee as almost a consolation prize. While Edelstein has given no indication of his next political move and has remained loyal to the Likud, it is not inconceivable that, if he is ousted, he could seek a new political home or build a new one. Doing so on the back of the haredi conscription issue may prove to be a winning strategy. Caving to haredi demands on conscription is not only unpopular among the general Jewish public but also among Likud voters. It is a hot-button issue, one that could drive a segment of Likud voters to follow Edelstein to a party that reflects their positions and values, first and foremost, support for mandatory military service for haredim. Polls suggest that the Likud has a solid base of about 18 seats that will remain loyal to Netanyahu no matter what. That figure is drawn from post-October 7 massacre polling. On October 6, 2023, a Maariv poll projected 28 seats for the Likud, reflective of what most of the polls were giving the party at the time as the judicial reform debate raged. The Likud won 32 seats in the 2022 election. In 10 polls conducted over the next two months immediately following October 7 – as the country seethed with fury at how such a catastrophe could have happened – the party averaged 18 seats, which can be considered its bedrock support. Currently, the Likud is polling around 27 seats, meaning that nine of those mandates are floating, i.e., voters currently within the Likud camp could jump ship over one issue or another. Considering the passion that the haredi conscription issue is triggering, this could be one of those issues. Edelstein, if he chose to form a party or join another, could offer those voters a new political home. In doing so, he could become that elusive vehicle that moves voters from one bloc to the other. Speculative as it may be, this scenario raises questions that the Likud might want to consider before removing Edelstein from his position, particularly the political ripple effects of sidelining someone over an issue that resonates deeply with much of the country, including a significant segment of its own voters. Solve the daily Crossword

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store