Skip to content
New Hate, Old Story

ArticlesAnalysis

Zionism is not the world's only ethnic or religious national movement

Zionism can be debated like any nationalism. But treating Jewish national self-determination as uniquely illegitimate ignores how common ethnic, religious, linguistic, and diaspora-linked national movements are.

About 8 min read

If Zionism means Jewish national self-determination, then the scandal is not that it exists. The scandal is that people talk as if Jews invented nationalism.

Ethnic, religious, linguistic, and diaspora-linked national movements are everywhere. Some are liberal. Some are ugly. Most are mixed. Zionism should be judged honestly too, but not by a rule invented only for Jews.

TL;DR

You can oppose specific Israeli policies. You can criticize the Nation-State Basic Law, settlement policy, treatment of Palestinians, coalition extremism, military actions, religious coercion, or unequal rights. You can argue for a different constitutional future. None of that requires pretending Zionism is some bizarre form of nationalism unlike anything else on earth.

The world is full of national movements built around shared peoplehood, language, religion, history, territory, trauma, exile, return, or diaspora. The Jewish version is not immune from critique. It is also not uniquely cursed.

What Zionism is, before the slogans

Encyclopaedia Britannica defines Zionism as a Jewish nationalist movement with the goal of creating and supporting a Jewish national state in Palestine, described as the ancient homeland of the Jews. It also notes that modern political Zionism emerged in central and eastern Europe in the late 19th century, in response to antisemitism and the failure of assimilation to protect Jews.

"Zionism, Jewish nationalist movement with the goal of the creation and support of a Jewish national state in Palestine, the ancient homeland of the Jews."

(Encyclopaedia Britannica)

That definition does not settle every moral or political question. National movements can dispossess others. States can discriminate. Borders can be unjust. Wars can be criminal. But if the category is "national movement of a people with a claimed homeland," Zionism is not strange. It is one example of a very common modern phenomenon.

National movements are usually particular

Nationalism is rarely just a spreadsheet of residents. It usually involves a story: a people, a language, a religion, a culture, a memory of sovereignty, a loss, a homeland, a diaspora, or a shared future. Britannica's overview of nationalism describes nationalist movements as political or cultural struggles by national groups for statehood, independence, autonomy, rights, or cultural revival. It lists examples including Palestinians, Kurds, Tibetans, Chechens, Bosniaks, Serbs, and Croats.

That list is the point. We do not usually hear that Kurdish nationalism is uniquely racist because it is Kurdish, or that Palestinian nationalism is illegitimate because it is Palestinian, or that Irish national feeling is bigotry because it speaks of the Irish nation. We ask better questions: What rights does it seek? What means does it use? What happens to minorities? What happens to rival claims?

Normal standard

Ask how a national movement behaves: rights, violence, borders, minorities, democracy, and law.

This standard can criticize Zionism sharply.

Double standard

Declare Jewish national self-determination uniquely illegitimate before asking those questions.

This standard singles Jews out as the one people denied the category.

Other examples people somehow understand

The comparison does not mean every case is morally identical. It means Zionism is not the only movement or state structure tied to ethnicity, religion, language, homeland, or diaspora.

How Zionism gets singled out

The most famous institutional example was the United Nations General Assembly's 1975 Resolution 3379, which declared that Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination. The resolution was revoked in 1991 by General Assembly Resolution 46/86, but the slogan survived because it is politically useful.

There is a reason it sticks. "Zionism is racism" sounds like anti-racism, but often functions as a category ban: Jews may be individuals, a religion, a memory, a victim group, maybe even a culture, but not a nation with a claim to self-determination. Other peoples get nationalist complexity. Jews get moral disqualification.

A better test

The honest test is not whether Zionism is national. It obviously is. The honest test is whether the national project is constrained by equal civil rights, minority protections, democratic institutions, fair borders, accountability for violence, and recognition of Palestinian self-determination too.

  • Does the state protect equal civil rights for citizens who are not part of the national majority?
  • Does it let minorities vote, speak, worship, organize, and challenge the state?
  • Does it acknowledge the national rights and human rights of neighboring peoples?
  • Does it treat diaspora identity as connection rather than license to erase others?
  • Does criticism use the same standards applied to other national movements?

Those questions can be very hard on Israel. They can be hard on Armenia, Pakistan, Greece, Croatia, Ireland, Palestinian nationalism, Kurdish nationalism, and any other national project. Good. That is what a real standard does.

Selected sources

Sources include broad reference works and official constitutional or legal texts showing how common national, religious, ethnic, and diaspora-linked identity claims are.