Peace as a Litmus Test for Zionism

As a result of ongoing conflict surrounding Israel, the concept of “Zionism” is constantly being defined and redefined to fit different agendas. Although peaceful realization has long been an important aspiration, as it is for any project of national self-determination, Zionism does not demand blind faith in peace with those who violently deny Jewish indigenous rights, nor an unconditional commitment to political arrangements detached from conditions on the grounds. 

Unfortunately, this idea was muddled in a recent article in the JTA by Shanie Reichman. She argues that Zionism entails a political resolution with Palestine as a necessary condition of the belief itself. She frames older generations of Jews, who have understandably become skeptical that peace is attainable as having “abandoned Zionism.” 

This argument is flawed for so many reasons. 

It’s worth saying explicitly that wanting peace is entirely consistent with Zionism, since the movement is fundamentally about Jews living freely and securely in Israel, and peaceful relations are often the most effective way to achieve that end. But Zionism has never demanded pacifism, nor does it obligate Jews or Israelis to pursue peace at any cost, regardless of violence, ideology, or repeated rejection by the other side. 

Reichman bases her argument on the observation that support for Israel has declined sharply among younger generations of American Jews. While she claims that 69% say it’s important to stand up for Palestinians and 67% say it’s important to support Israel,  the embedded link to these statistics is dead and could not be independently verified.

Even if we assume that such data is correct, her analysis is questionable. “Standing up for Palestinians” can mean a variety of different things and does not necessarily mean opposing Israel’s existence or Zionism. For many Jews, standing up for Palestinians could mean pushing back against Hamas, or supporting humanitarian aid, or expressing moral issues with how easily civilians are affected by war. The author is using these statistics as if they are undeniable proof of this abandonment of Zionism, when this isn’t the case at all.

Skepticism about achievable peace between Israelis and Palestinians does not negate Zionism; it only reflects an apt assessment of the current political reality. As a reminder, this reality has been shaped by decades of rejected peace deals, violence, and failed negotiations. No one is saying Israel is perfect, but putting most of the blame on them is ahistorical and unhelpful. 

How can Reichman expect Israelis to live side-by-side with people who want nothing else other than to kill them? This is the core issue. Her entire article implies that the growing lack of Jewish faith in peace is the main problem, not the ideology driving Palestinian nationalist antizionism. She's confused the chicken for the egg.

Israel is constantly being held to a standard of perfect optimism or nonviolence, which creates an unrealistic and unfair expectation that is not applied to other national movements. No other countries are expected to continuously seek peace, let alone send aid to a Terror organization which exists to kill them. 

One line toward the end of the article encapsulates this misguided logic fairly well: “giving up on the possibility of a political resolution is not pragmatism; it is surrender.” This claim completely conflates acknowledging a political reality with completely abandoning values or a Zionist identity. A political resolution between Israel and Palestinians would require so much compromise on both sides, a compromise that Hamas and the PA have shown time and time again it is unwilling to make. 

If Israelis were to accept these claims as a reality, this would essentially handcuff them to peace process strategies that we know from experience don't work. Instead of making Zionism conditional on how the rest of the world treats Jews, we could support Jewish self-determination regardless. 

When skepticism about the prospect of peace or concerns for Israeli security is conflated with an abandonment of Zionism itself, we lose the ability to distinguish specific policy critiques from the type of dehumanization that antizionist bigotry promotes. In the world that offers Jews little margin for error, this is simply tacking on one more way in which we are judged. Ultimately, debates over the popularity of Zionism are a distraction. Moving past these arguments about Israel’s right to exist would allow far more energy to be directed toward the difficult work of building a future grounded in security, dignity, and peaceful coexistence.