4 | NOVEMBER 7 • 2024 J
N
opinion
No, We Shouldn’t Retire the Word ‘Zionism.’
We Should Take It Back.
I
n the face of campus attacks on
“Zionists” and a global backlash
against the very ideology
of “Zionism,” there have been
calls to retire the word Zionism.
The latest came from Case Western
Reserve University professors Alanna
Cooper and Sharona
Hoffman, who argue
that because Israel’s
enemies use the word
to avoid saying “Israel,”
and distort the historical
meaning of the word,
the terms “Zionism
and Zionist should be
retired from our vocabulary.”
This would be a mistake of epic
proportions. It won’t make our
enemies love us. In fact, it will have
the opposite effect and just embolden
them to keep chipping away at our
narrative, our heritage and our people.
So, we must double down on that
word, reclaim it and remind everyone
what it really means.
And here’s what it means (the Anti-
Defamation League got it right):
“Zionism is the movement for the
self-determination and statehood for
the Jewish people in their ancestral
homeland, the land of Israel.” That’s it.
Nothing more and nothing less.
Calling for retiring the word
Zionism, even in the interest of
defending Israel, is a short-sighted
response that will only backfire. The
word is not only still relevant today,
but it also represents something vitally
needed for world Jewry at this hour:
Jewish pride. So instead of giving
in, we must push back and reclaim
the terminology. We must be proud
and show them that we won’t bow
to their pressure on this or any other
antisemitic attack, and here’s why:
First, words matter. Our enemies
have long used language to stoke
Jew hatred. From passion plays
that proclaimed Jews killed Jesus to
blood libels that claimed Jews drink
the blood of Christian children
to Hamas lies that Israelis harvest
Palestinian organs to anti-Israel
protesters screaming that Israel
commits genocide and apartheid —
our enemies have always used words
to inflame hatred against us, and it
has often led to real violence. They’re
doing the same thing today by turning
the word Zionism into a bad word.
But we cannot let them.
Second, we get to define our own
lexicon, not our adversaries. Cooper
and Hoffman write that Jewish Voice
for Peace, the United Nations and
others have chosen to give Zionism
“pernicious meanings.” So what?
We are already starting to lose the
nomenclature fight when it comes
to defining antisemitism because we
are letting our enemies tell us what
Jew hatred is and what it is not. Why
do we think caving to our adversaries
is ever the right strategy? Winston
Churchill famously said, “
An appeaser
is one who feeds a crocodile hoping it
will eat him last.”
Third, it’s a slippery slope. What’s
next? Jew haters will go back to the
U.N. to attempt once again to define
“Zionism as racism” — an argument
the American Jewish community and
government officials spent 16 years
fighting to repeal — and then where
will they then go from there? Will
they try to turn the word “Israel” or
“Jewish” into bad words, too? In 1975,
Daniel Patrick Moynihan, the U.S.
ambassador to the U.N., called the
effort to sully the word Zionism “a
great evil has been loosed upon the
world.” A half-century later, surely the
Jewish people can say the same thing.
Fourth, the attack on the word
Zionism is something more nefarious
in disguise: It is our enemies’ attempt
to erase the Jewish connection to Zion
altogether. Hoffman and Cooper write
that “Zionism should continue to be
used to refer to the movement that
predated the establishment of Israel in
1948.” But if we allow our enemies to
turn Zionism into a dirty word, then
that will pave the way for them to
turn the entire Zionist enterprise into
a dirty movement, which will pave the
way for them to discredit not just the
word Zionism, but the whole Zionist
project, meaning the State of Israel
itself. If we retire “Zionism,” with all
of its deep historical resonance, it will
only embolden them to keep lying
about the lack of Jewish connection to
the land of our people.
Ultimately, we must stand up to our
adversaries. We cannot bow to their
pressure. We must show them we are
proud of our heritage, our people and
our language — including the word
Zionism. For only pride will defeat
antisemitism. By giving in to this self-
defeating, antisemitic attempt to steal
our language from us, we are doing
the opposite of having pride — we are
going back to being the weak diaspora
Jews that the founders of Zionism
were pushing back against when they
called for the creation of the modern
Jewish State.
Today, a strong, defiant, self-
sufficient Judaism is needed more
than ever — and that type of Judaism
is best represented by Zionism.
As I’ve written before, “Zionism is
the belief that Jews hold the keys to
our own destiny and determine our
own future. We are no longer victims
of history; we write our own history.
Zionism is not just self-determination
for Jews in our homeland but self-
actualization for Jews all over the
world. That’s the Zionism of today,
modern Zionism, Zionism 3.0.
In the end, not only must the
word Zionism not be retired, but
the word and the ideal it embodies
must be resurrected, rejuvenated and
rebooted. A strong, courageous, self-
determining Zionism both in Israel
and in the diaspora is a Zionism
with fighting for. That’s what Israeli
soldiers are fighting for. That’s what
proud Jewish kids on campus are
fighting for. That’s what Jews around
the world are fighting for.
It’s time to double down and take
back the word Zionism.
Zack Bodner is the author of the book “Why
Do Jewish? A Manifesto for 21st-century
Jewish Peoplehood.” He is the president and
CEO of the OFJCC in Palo Alto, California,
and the founder of the Z3 Project, an effort to
reimagine diaspora-Israel relations.
Zack Bodner
JTA.org
Tel Avivians demonstrate against the U.N. decision declaring “Zionism is racism” in
Kings of Israel Square, Nov. 13, 1975. The signs read, “I am a Zionist” and “Judaism
is Zionism.”
MOSHE MILNER/ISRAEL GOVERNMENT PRESS OFFICE
PURELY COMMENTARY