Mohammed Amin tackles a thorny question in his latest blog post: ‘When does anti-Zionism become antisemitism’? In attempting to offer an answer, he devises an anti-Zionist taxonomy and uses Venn diagrams to suggest what kind of overlap exists between antisemites and different types of anti-Zionist. Even if one doesn’t agree with all Amin’s premises and conclusions, this still seemed like an interesting prompt for some further debate. Apologies in advance for adding to the categories suggested in the original article, and thus making this post read a bit like the label on a multivitamin bottle.
In the original post the EUMC working definition and the stated goals of the first Zionist congress are used as starting points for definitions of antisemitism and Zionism respectively.
Amin suggests that there are three different types of anti-Zionism which he labels A, B and C. However I think the most important distinction is in fact the he one he draws between different types of Anti-ZionismB so I’ll turn to that category last.
Here is how anti-ZionismA is defined.
Belief that the Basle Program could not be accomplished without overriding the rights of the Palestinians who already lived in the land. (See my review of Herzl’s ‘The Jewish State’.) Acceptance that historical wrongs occurred, and were committed by both parties. Acceptance that the State of Israel exists today with a 75% Jewish majority and that this is a legal and historical fact that cannot be reversed without further injustice to many people. The borders of the State of Israel to be negotiated and agreed with the Palestinians, with the 1949 armistice line as the starting point of the negotiations.
My immediate response was that such a definition wasn’t a million miles away from what some might term ‘Liberal Zionism’. Confusingly, it’s those who think Zionism is evil who are most likely to label ‘anti-ZionismA’ as unqualified Zionism. By their criteria many who feel no ideological or emotional pull towards Israel, including many Palestinians, are Zionists.
Anti-ZionismC is at the opposite extreme:
Belief that the immigration of European Jews (and Jews from Arab countries) into Palestine was so wrong that it should be reversed, with the Jewish population expelled so that Palestine becomes an entirely non-Jewish state.
There’s no need to dwell on this as I don’t think many will argue with Amin’s conclusion:
I find it hard to believe that people who adhere to anti-ZionismC are not motivated by hatred of Jews.
Anti-ZionismB is the tricky one.
Belief that separation between Jews living in the West Bank and Palestinians is no longer possible, and that a single binational state from the Mediterranean to the Jordan is the only just solution, even if this results in an eventual Arab majority in the state due to demographic change.
Although I don’t share Mohammed Amin’s assumption that it is almost unfeasible for someone to be both Jewish and antisemitic, I do agree that people will adopt this view (support for a one state solution) for quite different motives.
Amin goes on to draw a distinction between:
those who simply genuinely believe a two state solution is no longer possible (and who would presumably be cautiously pleased if they were proved wrong). Let’s call this Anti-ZionismB1.
and, on the other hand:
those who support a one state solution because they want the position of Jews to steadily worsen in the new state. I’ll call this stance Anti-ZionismB2.
I agree with Amin that antisemitism is far more likely to be prevalent in the second group than the first. Indeed, in that respect, it seems little different from Anti-ZionismC.
Even though the post concludes by noting that some may think all this mere casuistry, I felt a further division or category was needed. For me the taxonomy, although thought-provoking, seemed to exclude what I’d see as the classic or default anti-Zionist type, far more ideological than Anti-ZionismB1, but not racist in the Anti-ZionismB2 sense. Here’s my own (cautiously phrased)* definition:
He or she supports a one state solution on ideological grounds and thinks Zionism is racist. He or she deplores racism and so would not want to see any racial group disadvantaged in the new state.
I’ll call this anti-ZionismBχ. I am sure there are starry-eyed idealists in this group who truly deplore antisemitism, and are convinced the one state solution is optimal even though most Israelis and some Palestinians don’t agree. Whether or not such people are individually consciously or unconsciously antisemitic, they certainly seem to view the concerns of those living in the region with a chilly disregard (usually from afar) and also (to return to my opening point) distance themselves completely from followers of what Amin terms, in my view a little oddly, Anti-ZionismA. Even Palestinians in the latter category are treated with contempt. Although anti-ZionismBχ types just love boycotts you’ll rarely see them express hope that boycott-anxiety will kickstart the peace process.
I’ll be interested to hear what other readers make of Mohammed Amin’s taxonomy. After reading his post I can understand why he concludes:
I have never described myself as either a Zionist or an anti-Zionist.
The contested meaning of the words means that I am never likely to do so.
*Update. I should perhaps gloss this further. I am phrasing this cautiously in that I am framing this definition in terms those included in it would probably agree with. However I am inclined to be sceptical about this group, and think, at their very least, their position is one with an antisemitic impact if not an antisemitic intent, and in some cases goes further than this.