|
March 15, 2026
Key Developments and What We're Discussing Today:
- Our discussions will be more productive and less divisive if we do not assume that what we mean by Zionism, apartheid, or genocide is what others mean.
- Whether Israel is engaged in apartheid or genocide depends on how one defines those terms. Barely half of Jewish Americans think Israel did not commit genocide against the Palestinians.
- Whether one supports or opposes Zionism depends on how one defines that term. Only 37% of Jewish Americans consider themselves Zionists. For many Jewish Americans, Zionism means endorsement of a specific political project as it is currently practiced and defended.
- Thirty years of nearly continuous Netanyahu-led governments that have grown increasingly right-wing and messianic have led to these perceptions. If we don't like the way these terms are becoming defined, we should focus on changing the Israeli government or absent that, working to return the Israeli government's policies to consistency with historic values that undergird the U.S.-Israel relationship. Unless we are prepared to label substantial portions of American Jewry as antisemitic, we should not blame antisemitism when people use terms we might not like to describe the activities of Israel's current government.
- Plus the latest on Iran and this Tuesday's March 17 IL-09 Democratic congressional primary, which is now a race between Daniel Biss and Kat Abughazaleh. A vote for any other candidate is a wasted vote according to the latest independent poll. Biss deserves pro-Israel support.
Beware the Ides of March, but not this newsletter. If you can and if you want to, support my work by chipping in via credit card or PayPal, Venmo @Steven-Sheffey, or check. Thank you.
Greetings!
“When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”
So said Humpty Dumpty in Through the Looking Glass. So say many of us when we talk about Zionism, genocide, and apartheid.
We could have better conversations by defining our terms. Instead of assuming our definition is correct and telling the other person why they are wrong, we should ask what they mean by the term we are discussing. We might find that our interlocutor's views are not as abhorrent as we thought. We might find ourselves agreeing with them on next steps despite using certain words differently.
An obvious solution, which has some merit, is to stop using contentious words and phrases and say what we mean rather than using shorthand. Easier said than done.
I'm not ready to stop calling myself a Zionist even knowing that some people define that term differently from me. I am not ready to concede that it is pejorative. Where terms carry legal meanings, using those terms is hard to avoid--although as we will see, therein lies some confusion.
What does "Zionism" mean? A Jewish Federations of North America survey conducted in March 2025 found that only 37% of Jews surveyed said they identified as Zionist, yet 88% believed that Israel has the right to exist as a Jewish, democratic state.
As this report on the survey explains, much depends on how "Zionism" is defined: "American Jews do not have a mutually agreed-upon definition of Zionism — with those identifying as anti-Zionist and those identifying as Zionist ascribing sharply different meanings to the term.
"For example, about 80% of anti-Zionist Jews say “supporting whatever actions Israel takes” is a tenet of Zionism, while only about 15% of self-identified Zionists share the belief, according to the survey."
I identify as a Zionist because I define Zionism as "a political ideology holding that the Jewish people constitute a modern national collective" and should have the right that other nationalities have to a state in all or part of their ancestral homeland.
But Joel Swanson writes that "for many Jews today, 'Zionism' no longer means support for a Jewish homeland or even for Israel’s continued existence. It means endorsement of a specific political project as it is currently practiced and defended."
And not only for Jews. On March 6, Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) said, "I believe that Zionism in its current form means the expansion of a greater Israel, and I reject that. What I have said is that I believe in Jewish self-determination in terms of there being an Israel that can be a Jewish democratic state with equal rights."
Israel's Declaration of Independence, a Zionist document if there ever was one, declares the establishment of a "Jewish State" that "will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex." It's not unreasonable for Khanna and others to hold Israel to that standard and to support Zionism in that form even if they don't call it Zionism.
Jay Michaelson asks, "So who is right about what Zionism really means? Those of us who cling to the classical definition in spite of its remoteness from reality, or those who define Zionism as it has actually been put into practice in the decades of Netanyahu’s rule?"
If we can't agree on what Zionism means, how can we expect others to understand the term, let alone declare that opposing a term whose meaning is the subject of disagreement within the Jewish community is antisemitic?
How can we say that excluding Zionists is, as a practical matter, the same as excluding Jews when most Jews do not consider themselves Zionists? How can we equate anti-Zionism with antisemitism? As Harvard Law Professor Ben Eidelson explains, at least under federal law, we can't, and shouldn't. Eidelson's full testimony is worth your time to read, as is the Harvard Law Review article he wrote with Deborah Hellman.
Many Jews support Israel but reject Zionism. T'ruah CEO Jill Jacobs argues that Jewish legacy organizations have made the term “Zionist” a synonym for uncritical support of Israel. Instead, she argues in a later article, we should strive for a Zionism out of love.
Different definitions, different opinions.
What does "genocide" mean? For some, "genocide" is synonymous with the Holocaust (in which case nothing else is genocide) or it means killing or attempting to kill everyone, in which case what Israel did in Gaza is not genocide.
For others, "genocide" seems to mean causing widespread death and suffering, especially if its legitimate military necessity is unclear. To those people, what happened in Gaza might be genocide.
Others use the legal definition of genocide: Certain acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. The acts that constitute genocide fall into five categories: Killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction, in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Under the legal definition, it is not enough to prove the acts that constitute genocide. Intent to commit those acts must be proven.
Based on the legal definition, a methodologically sound poll found that 39% of Jewish Americans think Israel is guilty of genocide, 10% say they don't know, and 51% think Israel is not guilty of genocide. Based on the legal definition, scholars such as Omer Bartov think Israel is committing genocide.
Bartov's article is essential reading, but it might not convince you. The experts could be wrong. Had I been polled, I would have been among the 10% who said they didn't know. But after you read Bartov's article, you'll see why charges of genocide against Israel cannot be dismissed as easily as some might like.
An expert in the field told me privately regarding Israel and Gaza that "Evidence of genocidal intent is overwhelming; the question is whether the conduct flowed from that intent. [His] view is that there is no question that there are Israeli officers and soldiers who could be successfully prosecuted for genocide. Their words and deeds are closely linked. The question of whether the State of Israel as such is responsible for genocide is more complicated."
Jay Michaelson writes that despite evidence that Israel may have committed genocide under the legal definition, "it is still an open question, one that should be settled in courts of law."
He describes how the left and now a group of centrist rabbis and journalists, including journalist Yossi Klein Halevi, Rabbi Yitz Greenberg, and Rabbi Shmuly Yanklowitz, have misused the term "genocide" and drained it of meaning.
Michaelson concludes that "the left was wrong to make the word 'genocide' into a yes/no test of one’s political acceptability, and these would-be defenders of Israel are wrong to make it a test of whether one is an antisemite."
To better understand the complexity of whether the legal definition of genocide applies to Israel's actions in Gaza, read Ezra Klein's interview with Phillipe Sands, a lawyer who specializes in genocide cases, has tried genocide cases, and who teaches on these questions at Harvard Law School and University College London. I'll be surprised if you have a question that Klein did not ask, and he probably asks some questions you wish you'd thought to ask.
The International Court of Justice did not find that Israel committed genocide in Gaza. That determination has yet to be made. The ICJ concluded that some of the acts complained about, if they were proven, could fall under the United Nations’ Convention on Genocide. This article explains the confusion about the term "plausible" as used in that decision.
If you want to understand allegations of genocide against Israel that pre-date October 7, read documentation of Israeli actions against Palestinians in 1948, which contradict what some of us were taught to believe about "whether close to 800,000 Arabs fled at their own initiative and at the directive of their leaders – or were expelled." (tl;dr: What we were taught was wrong--but whether Israel's actions constituted genocide is another question.)
What does "apartheid" mean? For some, apartheid is what happened in South Africa: A relatively small minority of colonizers created different legal standards that discriminated against a large majority. They think that since Jews are not a small minority in Israel, since Jews have a historic connection to the land of Israel that whites did not have to South Africa, and since Palestinians have largely equal legal rights within pre-1967 Israel, Israel cannot be guilty of apartheid.
Others see two legal systems in the West Bank, one for Jews and one for Palestinians, and see the West Bank as increasingly and perhaps permanently hard to distinguish from Israel. For that reason, at least three former Israeli Prime Ministers, Yitzhak Rabin, Ehud Barak, and Ehud Olmert, used the word “apartheid” to describe where Israel was headed if it did not find a way to exit most of the West Bank and achieve a two-state solution. Without using the word "apartheid" (he may not have known the word in 1949), Israel's first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, issued a similar warning about attempting to control the West Bank.
Two former Israeli ambassadors to South Africa wrote in 2021 that "Israel has crossed a threshold and its actions in the occupied territories now meet the legal definition of the crime of apartheid under international law."
In 2023, Tamir Pardo, a former head of the Mossad, agreed, saying, “There is an apartheid state here. In a territory where two people are judged under two legal systems, that is an apartheid state.”
The four Israeli prime ministers, the two Israeli ambassadors to South Africa, and the Mossad chief are not anti-Israel or antisemitic. They cannot be dismissed as a bunch of ignorant, wild-eyed lefties. It's hard to think of seven people with more impressive pro-Israel, Zionist credentials who have refuted their arguments. They could be wrong, but it's hard to say that someone who shares their views is out of line.
Perhaps California Governor Gavin Newsom had a point.
Different definition, different opinions.
Shouldn't we object to allegations of genocide and apartheid because they delegitimize Israel? No. First, the premise of the question is wrong. These allegations can delegitimize those accused of these crimes and the governments accused of perpetrating them, and could expose the state to international punishment as a corrective measure, but the state itself is not delegitimized. Germany and South Africa are still on the map, but the governments that committed the crimes are no longer in power.
Second, to the extent delegitimization does occur, it is a consequence, not a defense. Can you imagine arguing that murder charges against you should be dropped because "if I'm guilty of murder, I'll go to jail"? Well, yeah.
Third, no matter what we call them--war crimes, ethnic cleansing--the facts of what Israel appears to have done, not what we call them, are the real issue, an issue that all pro-Israel advocates must address rather than wish away.
In Case You Missed It:
- Dan Pfeiffer explains why Democrats should oppose the $50 billion that Trump is going to request to pay for the Iran war. Dan Shapiro writes that Trump needs to call it a win and find an off-ramp.
- Judd Legum: Trump and top administration officials have given at least 17 different responses about why the war began. And yet some who support the war think they know why we are fighting it.
Tweets of the Week. Katrina Gulliver, Jon Schwarz, Laura Rozen, and Maximilian Uriarte.
Thread of the Week. Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT).
Video Clip of the Week. Is it War?
Vintage Music Clip of the Week. Beastie Boys - Make Some Noise. The video is filled with cameos. See how many you can spot.
The Fine Print. I read every reply to this newsletter. I reply as often as I can. All I ask is that you read the fine print before you reply or send me anything.
For those new to this newsletter. This is the newsletter even Republicans have to read and the original home of the viral and beloved Top Ten Signs You're At a Republican Seder (yes, I wrote it).
If someone forwarded this newsletter to you, your luck continues. You can subscribe and get it in your inbox every Sunday for free. Just click here.
Be sure to read my posts on distinguishing anti-Zionism from antisemitism, how to heal the generational rift on Israel and antisemitism, and the IHRA definition of antisemitism.
I hope you enjoyed today's newsletter. It takes time to write and costs money to send. If you'd like to support my work, click here and fill in the amount of your choice. You don't need a PayPal account. If you see something that says "Save your info and create a PayPal account," click the button to the right and it will go away. Or you can Venmo @Steven-Sheffey. Or you can send a check.
Unless stated otherwise, my views do not necessarily reflect the views of any candidates or organizations I support or am associated with.
| 