Can One be Anti-Zionist but Not Antisemitic?

Author: Tim Platnich

Date: August 17, 2026

Zionism was a movement that began in the 1800s. At that time, Zionists were Jews who believed, for various reasons, that the Jewish people needed a homeland. Jews, in that period, were a diaspora living all over the world with concentrations in both Western and Eastern Europe. Increasingly, they were being subjected to persecutions and pogroms, particularly in Eastern Europe. The Zionists were of the view that Jews would never be accepted as full nationals and citizens of any host country. They pushed for the establishment of a homeland in ancestral Palestine.

The result of the Zionist movement was ultimately the creation of the internationally recognized State of Israel in a portion of the old Roman province of Palestine. Israel now has a population of 10 million people of which Jews make up about 75%.

At the start of the Zionist movement back in the 1800s, a Jew could be Zionist, anti-Zionist or ambivalent to the question of a homeland. A Zionist was pro-homeland; an anti-Zionist was someone who was not in favour of the establishment of a homeland either at all, or as proposed in Palestine. Such a person believed that Jews could be welcome and integrated into existing societies. Today there are about 8.5 million Jews living outside of Israel. These Jews may or may not be supportive of Zionism.

Of course, non-Jews could also enter the debate about Zionism on one side or the other.

Now that Israel exists, what does Zionism mean? It at least must mean the belief that Israel has a continuing right to exist. It could also mean, in the minds of some, the expansion of the borders of Israel into lands occupied since the the Six-Day Ware of 1967.

Leaving aside for a moment the issue of an expanded Israel, what can it mean to be an anti-Zionist now given the existence of Israel as a state? Can it possibly mean anything other than the nullification of Israel as a state? What would this do to the 7.5 million Jews resident there? Would they become refugees? Another diaspora? It seems to me that now, given Israel exists, advocating for its extinguishment - from the river to the sea - is at least, in effect, antisemitic. Notionally, I suppose, one could argue that harm to Jewish citizens and residents of Israel is just an unfortunate consequence of the geo-political redrawing of a map. This harm is not intended to be antisemitic.

Most Jews living in Israel are likely Zionists in the sense that they believe in the State of Israel and its right to exist. What about Jews not living in Israel? They may or may not be Zionists. Do anti-Zionists consider this possibility when they commit hate-crimes against random Jews?

Let's take bombing or shooting at a synagogue, say, in Toronto. Is a synagogue the symbol of Zionism? Are those in the synagogue Zionists? There really can only be one interpretation of such an act - antisemitism. Wait. I suppose it could be more mildly interpreted as an act of terrorism with a view to compelling Zionists to give up the existence of Israel or at leasts any thoughts of expansion. In this interpretation, Jews praying at Synagogue are just collateral damage.

Let's go back to those Zionists that believe in an expanded Israel into occupied territories. There are certainly good grounds for opposing this belief. The argument against the expansion of Israel's existing borders neither has to be anti-Zionist or antisemitic. It would be akin to arguing against Russian's territorial expansion into Ukraine. Russia's aggression is wrongful on other grounds. These grounds may also apply to Israel. This is a complex but narrow question that should take us out of labelling those pro and con as Zionists, anti-Zionist, or antisemitic.

The other problem is when people use the cover of anti-Zionism to cloak real antisemitism. As hard as it is to believe by rational people, antisemitism continues to exist. As there are laws against many forms of expression of antisemitism, it is safer to deny that one is an antisemite, and claim that one is just an anti-Zionist. It is a clever word trick for some. It is not unlike violent rioters claiming they are just peaceful protesters.

It gives one cause to think twice when faced with someone claiming to be anti-Zionist but not antisemitic.