The imprecision of a certain kind of phrasemaker is like the work of a veteran watchmaker: evidence of design. The apparent fastidiousness of one, of the watchmaker who builds and tests and finishes each part, doesn’t negate the maliciousness of the other. On the contrary, because the phrasemaker uses words the way the watchmaker uses parts, because each word has a specific place and a specific purpose, the resultant movement is no accident. Because the movement is cheap and inaccurate, because the calendar function does not work and the date wheel skips October 7, the phrasemaker who produces it—the propagandist who retails it—is no naïf.
So when the phrasemaker speaks of “Zionists,” when he speaks of peace not because he loves it but because he hates that Israel may win its war against Hamas, when he speaks to condemn Jewish texts written in a language he doesn’t speak, when he does this repeatedly, his motive is clear. When the phrasemaker is a friend of the enemies of Israel, what the phrasemaker says matters. When the wording is too familiar to be a fluke and the timing too convenient to be a coincidence, how we respond to the phrasemaker matters most.
Our first response should be to return to the present, because 127 years after the First Zionist Congress, the existence of Israel is no dream. Seventy-six years after the establishment of Israel, the promise of Israel is no fantasy. Even after the loss of 1189 souls, the hope of the citizens of Israel isn’t yet lost. No loss save annihilation can end Israel, because the vision of a free nation in the Promised Land is no illusion. The reality of Israel is the essence of Zionism, a fact made plain in laws, language, culture, literature, history, institutions, and tradition. To speak as if none of these things is true, as if Zionism is still an idea or Mandatory Palestine still a territory, is to deny reality.
As the work of Israel is in works, with Zionist organizations responsible for the planting of over 240 million trees and the construction of over 180 dams and reservoirs, the purpose of Zionism is practical. As the work also saves lives, with Zionist organizations responsible for the founding of hospitals that extend a hand to all, the practice of Zionism is just. Whatever else Zionism is, whether it’s liberal or religious or cultural or revisionist, it’s not an abstraction: the land of Zion, the nation of Israel, negates the academics of anti-Zionism.
The skies over Israel are no abstraction, where white lines and orange points intersect and explode. The “sky art” of rocket fire is no abstraction to residents of Tel Aviv or Ashkelon, who learn ballistics by ducking for cover. War is no abstraction to families in Haifa or Jerusalem, where Hamas vandalizes the sky with missiles. Nothing about Israel is academic. Nothingness is, however, what anti-Zionism seeks to achieve—from the river to the sea.
If Zionism is inherently wrong, anti-Zionists should say why. If anti-Zionists say “resistance” is justified, they should at least say who’s a Zionist. Who among the 9.4 million citizens of Israel would anti-Zionists not harm? How many of Israel’s 7.4 million Jews would anti-Zionists not kill? Of the 72 hostages who are still alive in Gaza, how many would anti-Zionists not free?
Perhaps instead the word “Zionist” is a euphemism, which anti-Zionists use as an epithet. The word dates back to 1890, before the creation of the Syrian Republic, the Kingdom of Transjordan, the United Kingdom of Libya, the United Arab Republic, the State of Greater Lebanon, and the second iteration of the Third Saudi State. Not even the world’s oldest anti-Zionist is older than the word itself. And yet anti-Zionists continue to misuse the word in similar ways, which translates to 15 minutes of infamy for every Two Minutes Hate.
No words can dignify anti-Zionism, for it’s a philosophy of evasion. No deeds can disguise the vanity of anti-Zionism, for it’s a language of empty words. Nothing anti-Zionists say can ennoble what anti-Zionism means to the people of Israel.