Deconstructing the Binary : Why the Zionist/Antizionist binary is both inaccurate and harmful

By James M. Branum

(July 7, 2024)

We live in an amazing moment in history in which many people are questioning binaries of all kinds. The best example is the gender binary, which was once understood by many as being an immutable binary, but today a growing number rightly reject this binary.

But there are other binaries that all need deconstructing. One of them is the Zionist/Antizionist binary. I believe that this binary needs to be destroyed because it is both inaccurate and harmful.

In this essay, I will explore the binary's failure to describe the full range of views at stake as well as some of its harmful aspects. I will then conclude by arguing why embracing pluralism is a better path than accepting the binary.

Before I proceed, I do need to give a disclaimer and I need to define some terms.

First, the disclaimer: I write this essay with a fair amount of anxiety, as I fear that I will be misheard and might offend friends and family who might see things differently. So let me state clearly that my intention is not to offend or be inflamatory. And, of course, I must state that this essay reflects my views alone and not those of my employers or anyone else.

Second, I need to define the term of Zionism. Zionism has many definitions in different contexts, but for the purposes of this essay, I’m using the term to refer to the idea that Jewish claims to the land of Israel/Palestine should be prioritized. This inclusive definition includes a large range of views ranging from liberal Zionists (who often support a two-state solution) to extreme positions (such as those who advocate for expanded settlement activity or even the complete removal of all non-Jews as permanent inhabitants of Israel).

As for Antizionism, I’m using the term to refer to any philosophy/perspective that rejects the central claim of Zionism and seeks to counter the work of Zionism. Like the term Zionism, Antizionism has many definitions, but I’m sticking to this very basic definition for this essay.

These definitions are less than ideal (primarily because there are so many competing and conflicting definitions for these terms), but I’ve settled on them as being the most inclusive/neutral choices possible among the different definitions.

My Story

I am going to share a bit of my own story as I think it illustrates why the Zionist/AntiZionist binary doesn’t always describe individual Jews accurately.

I was adopted into Judaism through the Humanistic movement in 2014, and today, I am one of the leaders of a Humanistic online havurah as well as an active member of a brick-and-mortar Reform temple in my city. I am also a peace and social justice activist, which has mostly been expressed through my work as an attorney who assists US military servicemembers struggling with issues of conscience and other areas of injustice. My religious and activist backgrounds complicate my understanding of these issues.

As a Jew, I’m drawn to have an affinity for fellow Jews. Since about half of the world’s Jews live in Israel, I can’t help but care about them as a kind of extended family. These bonds of connection have grown as I’ve come to connect and engage with Israelis (both online and when they visit the US), and have learned how diverse they are in their political and religious orientations. I also have deep admiration for the cultural work of the Israeli nation, particularly in its its successful modern revival of the Hebrew language (an inspiring example for all who seek to see indigenous languages revived), but also recognize simultaneously the many ways that the state of Israel has failed to live up to its professed high values (most notably in the ways the state discriminates against secular and non-Orthodox Jews, as well as intermarried Jews). I also recognize the great comfort that many diasporic Jews feel in having a safe refuge, a place where they can always go if the treatment of Jews in their own country becomes bad — but I don’t share this in comfort because I know that the state of Israel is not a refuge for a humanistic convert like myself, and I know that even if an exception were made, I would be living at best as a second-class citizen in a country that doesn’t treat all Jews equally under the law.

As a Humanistic Jew, I value the welfare of humanity as a whole above all else, and hence I dream of the day that the nation-states of the world evolve themselves out of existence. Of course, I still care deeply about the welfare of the Jewish people, but I see that desire as subordinate to broader universal human concerns.

 
As a peace and social justice activist, I am also drawn to care for the underdog, which means I am compelled to care deeply about the welfare of the Palestinian people. I have many personal connections to Palestinians, including a fair number of Palestinian-Americans who have found a new home here in the US but who also long to be able to safely return home and be with family. And I’m friends with many Palestinian solidarity activists, including some of whom have traveled to Israel/Palestine to escort Palestinian children on their way to school (in locales where these children have been attacked by extremist settlers).

These tensions are complicated further because of my Native American heritage^[1] which calls me to apply an Indigenous perspective to issues of justice. But this is easier said than done because most Palestinians and Jews^[2] have valid claims of being indigenous to the land of Israel/Palestine, a fact that has been proven by both history but also by genetics.^[3] Of course, this is not an unfamiliar problem (here in North America, most areas have more than one indigenous people), but it does add a layer of complexity to the situation.

Finally, I’m torn by my competing loyalties to the communities I belong to. I’m part of organizations (both religious and secular) that have taken conflicting positions on the issue of Israel/Palestine. Some of my favorite people in the world, who work tirelessly for justice and a better world, describe themselves as Zionists, but I have other people in my life, dear friends and allies in struggles for justice, who describe themselves as Antizionists. This is why I find lazy and hateful stereotypes of all “Zionists” or all “Antizionists” to be so offensive because I know many real people who defy these stereotypes.

And all of these tensions are compounded by the present moment in history. The land of Israel/Palestine is currently grappling with the horrors of war crimes (committed, I believe, by both Hamas^[4] and the IDF^[5] — neither side is innocent^[6]), as well as a long history of oppression and trauma experienced by all of the peoples of the land. And we can’t forget the terrible dynamics of Antisemitism and Islamaphobia that have infested the United States and many other parts of the world. While the more extreme versions of these forms of hate are easy to spot and thankfully widely condemned, the less extreme versions are often tolerated when the target of the hate is the other.

The consequence of all of this is that I do not fit into either of these ideas. I’m not a Zionist because I can’t prioritize one Indigenous people’s claim to the land over that of another Indigenous people, but also because I’m not a nationalist (of any variety) and yearn for the day when our division of humanity into nation-states is no more.

But I’m also not an Antizionist because I refuse to write off the Israeli people. They matter too. They should be able to be free and safe. I also do not want to define myself solely by who I disagree with.

The Harm of the Binary

The Zionist/Antizionist binary is not only inaccurate, it is also harmful. Here are the reasons why:

1. The binary leads to the inevitable exclusion of Jews and fellow travelers from communities they want to be a part of.

2. The binary silences voices because most people are uneasy expressing disagreement if it might lead them being labeled as the “other.”

3. The binary polarizes, pushing people to adopt singular over-simplified positions out of loyalty to one’s side.

4. The binary closes hearts and minds.

There is good news, though. We do not have to accept the binary, and in fact there are already communities and movements who are choosing the path of pluralism as it relates to the issue of Israel/Palestine.

One such organization is the SHJ (Society for Humanistic Judaism),^[7] the primary denominational body that represents most Humanistic Jewish congregations as well as a growing number of individual independent members. The SHJ has a policy of not taking stances on issues unless there is a significant consensus among its members, so it has instead embraced the idea that it can simply recognize that Humanistic Jews have a broad range of views on this topic, and instead focus on providing resources to help communities to deal with this diversity.  

One of those resources is a newly-created web page in which the SHJ has shared the writings of Humanistic Jewish rabbis and leaders on the topic. Some of these writings even disagree with each other. The organization has chosen to do this out of its belief in the value of civil dialogue and as a reflection of the Jewish emphasis (going back to at least the Talmud) of honoring and recording multiple competing viewpoints.

I understand that embracing pluralism may not be possible for all communities (particularly those who serve a smaller subset of like-minded people), but I do think that larger big-tent communities and movements should consider the wisdom of embracing pluralism and of staying engaged in our most Jewish of practices - disagreeing in a civil way.