Bobby Zirkin is a Baltimore attorney, former Maryland state senator and delegate who represented parts of Baltimore County in the General Assembly for more than two decades. He recently posted this in the Baltimore Sun.

Anti-Zionism and antisemitism are not Separate

This October, it will be three years since the massacre perpetrated by Hamas terrorists. Almost three years since mass murder, gang rapes, torture, beheadings and kidnappings of mostly young people enjoying a beautiful day at a music festival. Almost three years since the worst massacre of Jews since the Holocaust and an unleashing of antisemitic hate around the world last seen when Adolf Hitler ruled Germany. Following the inhumanity of Oct. 7, Israel did something that Jews were unable to do during World War II — defend themselves. Back then, Israel did not officially exist, and Jews were left to fend for themselves, but now, things are different. Israel unleashed war on the terrorists and their benefactors in Iran, fighting a seven-front war for its very survival.

Most of the criticism of Israel’s fight for survival has been leveled by people who offer no solutions whatsoever. Grandstanding politicians such as Maryland Sen. Chris Van Hollen hurl half-truths and criticism without ever attempting to suggest what Israel should do to protect itself. The lies told by these individuals have fed the cancer of antisemitism both in the United States and abroad.

A ridiculous refrain has come from some of these fringe politicians, including Michigan Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed and New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani. They have tried to make the claim, albeit an absurd one, that they are not antisemitic, but rather “just anti-Zionist.” In numerous conversations with people whom I consider well-meaning, I have tried to explain why these two concepts are one and the same.

Anti-Zionism is sometimes presented as a political position that is separate from antisemitism. Its advocates argue that they are not opposed to Jews, but only to Zionism or to the State of Israel. However, this distinction collapses under scrutiny. Anti-Zionism is defined simply as the opposition to the existence of Israel as a Jewish state — not criticism of a particular Israeli government or policy.

Zionism is defined as the belief that the Jewish people, like other nations, have a right to self-determination in their historic homeland. Anti-Zionism, therefore, is not simply criticism of a prime minister or military operation. Citizens of Israel criticize their government every day. Criticism of a government is normal in any democracy. Anti-Zionism, by definition, is something different. It is opposition to the existence of Israel itself.

Once this distinction is understood, the discriminatory nature of anti-Zionism is apparent. The world contains nearly 200 sovereign states, many of which were created through conflict, partition, migration, conquest or other arrangements. Yet anti-Zionists single out the world’s only Jewish state for elimination. They do not merely seek policy changes; they oppose the continued existence of the state itself. The question then becomes: Why should Jews alone be denied a right that is routinely recognized for other peoples?

The hypocrisy becomes even more obvious when examining other nation-states. Consider Pakistan, created in 1947 as a homeland for Muslims in the Indian subcontinent. Its creation was accompanied by massive population transfers, violence and the displacement of millions of people. Hundreds of thousands died during partition. Yet there is no movement dedicated to dismantling Pakistan. One may criticize Pakistani policies, military actions or governments, but few people identify as “anti-Pakistan” in the sense of opposing the country’s existence. Or Afghanistan. Iran. Egypt. Libya. Costa Rica. Vatican City. The list goes on and on.

Many countries have an official state religion. Numerous officially Muslim and Christian countries define themselves in religious terms, much more so than Israel. Yet these arrangements are rarely viewed as inherently illegitimate. Why, then, is Israel treated differently? Why is the Jewish state’s legitimacy uniquely challenged? If national self-determination is acceptable for other religions, why should it be unacceptable only for Jews? The unequal standard applied to Israel is difficult to explain without acknowledging the role of antisemitic prejudice.

Every nation has a complicated history. Borders have shifted. Populations have moved. Conflicts have occurred. If historical grievances were sufficient to invalidate a state’s existence, few countries would survive scrutiny, including the United States. The selective application of this standard to Israel suggests that something else is at work.

Zionism emerged in response to centuries of persecution. Jews experienced discrimination, expulsion, pogroms and ultimately the Holocaust. The Zionist movement developed from the recognition that Jewish minorities could not rely on others for protection. Like many other national liberation movements, it sought self-determination and security for a people who had repeatedly faced violence and exclusion.

To oppose that right uniquely for Jews is to treat Jews differently from every other people. That is why anti-Zionism cannot be separated from antisemitism. Antisemitism is not limited to crude stereotypes or overt hatred. It can also manifest as the denial of rights granted to others.

Some people sincerely believe they are opposing only a political ideology. Yet intentions do not erase consequences. A movement dedicated to eliminating the world’s only Jewish state inevitably threatens the collective rights of the Jewish people. It tells Jews that their national aspirations are illegitimate. It demands that they surrender a form of self-determination that is widely accepted for other groups.

This does not mean that every individual who calls themselves anti-Zionist consciously hates Jews. However, the ideology itself rests upon a principle that denies Jews what it grants to others. That double standard places anti-Zionism firmly within the broader tradition of antisemitism.

In the end, criticism of Israeli governments is not antisemitic. Debate over borders, policies, leaders and military actions is entirely legitimate. But anti-Zionism is not merely criticism. It is opposition to the existence of a Jewish state. When an ideology seeks to deny only the Jewish people the right of national self-determination while accepting that right for everyone else, it ceases to be a neutral position. It becomes discrimination. For that reason, anti-Zionism and antisemitism are not separate concepts. They are, at their core, expressions of the same underlying prejudice. Unless, that is, you also seek to eradicate the existence of some 50 other nations in the world.

Bobby Zirkin is a columnist at The Baltimore Sun and a partner at Zirkin and Schmerling Law in Baltimore. He represented Baltimore County in the General Assembly for 21 years as a Democratic state senator and delegate. He can be reached at bz@zandslaw.com