Anti-Zionism is antisemitism — university leaders settle the question
Last week, in their testimony to the House Committee on Education & Workforce, UC Berkeley Chancellor Rich Lyons, City University of New York Chancellor Félix V. Matos Rodríguez and Georgetown interim President Robert M. Groves cut through all this academic hairsplitting. 'Is denying the Jewish people their rights to self-determination … antisemitism? Yes or no?' asked Rep. Burgess Owens (R-Utah). All three university leaders replied simply and unequivocally: 'Yes.'
The right to Jewish self-determination is a textbook definition of Zionism. The clarity with which the university officials pegged anti-Zionism as antisemitic is much-needed and long overdue.
For years, progressives have raised consciousness about the need to recognize and repudiate bigoted dog whistles, microaggressions and misgendering. Yet many of those same progressives have been shockingly silent when it comes to decrying the macroaggressions of antisemitism that have become increasingly commonplace at anti-Israel protests. They've insisted that the now-familiar chants — 'From the river to the sea, Palestine shall be free!' 'We don't want no two states! We want all of '48!'— are not antisemitic, just anti-Zionist, with some who are Jewish concurring and providing cover.
Yet just as there can be 'racism without racists' — that is, racist results without racist intents — so too can there be antisemitism without antisemites. Not all anti-Zionists are antisemites, but anti-Zionism, in its most basic form — denying to the Jewish people the right to self-determination, a right recognized as inherent to countless others, including Palestinians — is itself a form of antisemitism.
Moreover, because anti-Zionism singles out the Jewish state alone for elimination — among the dozens of ethnonational or ethnoreligious states in the world, including myriad Islamic ones — that, too, makes it a form of antisemitism.
Declaring anti-Zionism to be antisemitic, as the university leaders did, was an important development for the dignity of Jewish students, one that echoed and amplified a federal district court's preliminary injunction last year that said UCLA could not allow anti-Israel activists to exclude 'Jewish students … because they refused to denounce their faith,' of which Zionism was a central component, from parts of the campus, as happened during protests against the Israel-Hamas war.
Zionism, at its core, is a belief in Israel's right to sovereignty as a Jewish state on part of the ancestral homeland of the Jewish people. That's a millennia-old article of faith for Judaism, as reflected, for example, in daily Jewish prayers, the Passover Seder and the ritual of breaking a glass at weddings. Those claiming the mantle of Zionism for far more aggressive or exclusionary aims don't change that core fact, nor do those treating Zionism as a uniquely malevolent expression of national liberation or nation-building.
Recognizing anti-Zionism as a manifestation of antisemitism is an important step forward for combating the discrimination and ostracism that many Jewish students have experienced for expressing their support for Israel's right to exist in the face of those who call for its elimination. Such recognition, in turn, can help concentrate campus conflicts about Israel and Palestinians on what matters most: fruitful debate over Israel's actions (including its prosecution of the war in Gaza) rather than fruitless shouting matches over Israel's existence and neo-McCarthyite litmus tests ('Are you now or have you ever been a Zionist?').
As this happens, we would be well-served to cease and desist using the terms 'Zionism' and 'anti-Zionism,' except as historical artifacts. After all, 'Zionism' refers to the aspiration to create a nation that is now nearly 80 years old. And anti-Zionism thus perpetuates a fantasy that Israel's long-settled place among the family of nations is still open for debate. It isn't, any more than, say, the existence of Russia under Putin or the United States under Trump, however much we might deplore their policies, is open for debate.
We owe the Berkeley, CUNY and Georgetown leaders a great debt of gratitude for helping to elevate the intractable campus conflicts about Israel and the Palestinians to a higher plane.
Mark Brilliant is an associate professor of history and American studies at UC Berkeley.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Fox News
2 minutes ago
- Fox News
Jewish leader predicts violent future for NYC residents if Mamdani wins in November: 'Real concern'
A New York City Jewish leader is speaking out about the possibility of a Zohran Mamdani term as mayor of New York City, telling Fox News Digital he is concerned about the safety of Jewish residents, as well as all New Yorkers. Scott Feltman, executive vice president of the One Israel Fund, told Fox News Digital that the Jewish community in the country's largest city is "not against" a Muslim or any person of faith running for office, but what they do oppose is candidates that "align themselves with nefarious actors" like Hamas or Hezbollah. "He was just recorded at a local mosque where the Imam of that mosque has basically called for the death of IDF soldiers and praised the efforts of Hamas," Feltman said. "So that's what we're opposed to, and it's a very, very real serious concern." Feltman pointed to the rise of antisemitic attacks in recent years, particularly in New York City, which he says has "created a certain trepidation in the Jewish community and having this particular candidate now making such inroads" is a "real concern." Two Israeli embassy staffers were killed in Washington, D.C., earlier this year by a man shouting "free Palestine" around the same time that an Egyptian man targeted a pro-Israel demonstration, killing one person and injuring several others, in Boulder, Colorado. "I know that every single day I fear for my own staff knowing that our organization has been called out by this candidate, and we have no idea, you know, who's following him and what their interests and what their actions may be. So it is a real serious concern." Mamdani, along with actress Cynthia Nixon, called out the One Israel Fund earlier this month in a post Feltman responded to with an article in American Thinker. "When you go out and you align yourselves with terminology like globalize the intifada, which is basically a euphemism for kill Jews all over the world, that's what it is, the intifada was basically a movement in Israel 25 years ago to destroy the state of Israel and didn't discriminate against civilian or military personnel," Feltman told Fox News Digital. "And when you want to globalize that, the messaging is very clear to the people who are listening and following and that has put many people in the Jewish community, if not all of us, on notice and has created the feeling of genuine concern. I'm concerned for New York City in general. It's not just the Jewish community. His platform of defunding the police and basically offering all kinds of free things to people, which I don't think he can even accomplish, even though he keeps doubling down on the rhetoric, but just defunding the police puts everyone here in jeopardy." Mamdani has been widely criticized for his initial failure to condemn the phrase "globalize the intifada", which many Jewish people view as a call for violence. Mamdani eventually walked back his initial reluctance by saying he discourages people from using the phrase and told business leaders he would not use it. Feltman referred to Mamdani as a "social media darling" and complimented the way he has been able to mobilize voters but said, ultimately, while discussing his rise, that the education system has done a "tremendous injustice to our children, especially on the university level where we see antisemitism exploding exponentially." Fox News Digital reached out to Mamdani's campaign for comment.


Fox News
32 minutes ago
- Fox News
Zelenskyy forced to rethink anti-corruption law after public backlash
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is set to introduce new legislation that will restore the independence of anti-corruption agencies in Ukraine after fierce public opposition and international condemnation over signing a law that targeted Ukraine's independent anti-corruption institutions. In a sudden turn of events, Zelenskyy posted a video on X in which he said, "Of course, everyone has heard what people are saying these days – on social media, to each other, on the streets. It's not falling on deaf ears. We analyzed all concerns, all aspects of what needs to be changed and what needs to be stepped up. "I will propose a bill to the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine that will be the response. It will ensure the strength of the rule of law system, and there will be no Russian influence or interference in the activities of law enforcement. And very importantly – all the norms for the independence of anti-corruption institutions will be in place," he said according to a translated version on the screen." Mass protests erupted in Kyiv and across Ukraine in opposition to the law, the largest anti-government demonstrations since Russia's full-scale invasion began in February 2022. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen called Zelenskyy to express her strong concerns and convey Brussels' disapproval of the bill. One source close to the situation, who asked to remain anonymous, told Fox News Digital that the incident should give President Zelenskyy pause as to whether he is getting the best counsel from his closest people. The individual with ties to the Ukraine government said this propaganda bonanza for Russia is a self-inflicted wound and also shows the president and his team have misread public sentiment. Many Ukrainians and Western allies fear the current turmoil could jeopardize their path to join the European Union and fracture society's unity while the country faces continued Russian onslaughts. Although he signed the original bill, Zelenskyy said with the announcement of the new bill that it will ensure the independence of anti-corruption bodies and also eliminate Russian influence over their activities. In defending the previous legislation, he claimed that Ukraine's anti-corruption infrastructure was infiltrated by Russia. The previous bill that passed on Tuesday allowed Ukraine's Prosecutor General, appointed by the president, wide authority over cases before the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU), an anti-corruption agency that was championed by the United States and Europe. It gave the prosecutor general the sweeping power to transfer cases from NABU and usurp other powers from the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO), the agency responsible for prosecuting NABU's cases. "That is tantamount to being able to squash any legal accountability for corruption," Josh Rudolph, anti-corruption expert and senior fellow at the German Marshall Fund, told Fox News Digital. Rudolph noted that the heads of NABU and SAPO are highly reputable professionals and were selected with the concurrence of Ukraine's international partners, a key component of joining the EU. "Zelenskyy could have come out as a hero or a villain if he signed the bill. It was a moment of truth," Orysia Lutsevych, Head of Ukraine Forum, Chatham House, told Fox News Digital. Even though Zelenskyy listened to public opinion and ultimately backed down, his overall popularity continues to take a hit. Ukraine has been plagued by government corruption since declaring independence from the Soviet Union in 1991. Many Ukraine watchers are worried that efforts to rollback anti-corruption initiatives will be fodder for Russian propaganda and fracture Ukraine's unity at a critical time in the war. "Russia can and will use Ukraine's move to restructure anti-corruption agencies to argue lack of unity, support for the government, and internal disagreements. It will again apply its propaganda arguments about legitimacy of Zelenskyy and the need for elections," Tymofiy Mylovanov, President of Kyiv School of Economics, told Fox News Digital. Russian President Vladimir Putin claims Zelenskyy is illegitimate and has called for new elections in Ukraine. Elections were scheduled for March 2024 but postponed while the country remains at war and under martial law. The disunity within Ukraine comes at a time when Russian forces are escalating large-scale missile and drone strikes in Kyiv and across the country. Russian forces continue to make advances while Kyiv urgently pleads with Europe and the United States to send air defense systems and other key weapons to limit Moscow's battlefield gains.
Yahoo
2 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