Anti Semitism to increase after the government sides with Islamists

So don't use it.

I don't use the term anti zionist it because I know it is offensive to Jewish people who would assume I was anti israel's existence, but I also hate when someone does use it and they are instantly called antisemitic it just shuts down discussion and further entrenches views.

The only reason for non Jewish people to obscure the meaning of zionism is to provide cover for antisemitism. There is no need to play the game unless you want to.
Comments like this are achieving absolutelty nothing and assuming a whole host of things about people which are often wrong

There is no need to play the game unless you want to.
edited to add what does this even mean?

Some Palestinians do live happily in Israel. Israelis living in Gaza would be killed.

Why is that do you think? What is the one difference between Palestinians living in Gaza, or the West bank, and the Palestinians you describe as living happily in Israel.

I think there is a difference between the meaning of a word evolving gradually within the group it’s describing (like whether or not it implies that all Jews move to Israel) and changes imposed from outside by people who keep using the word incorrectly.

Exactly. Obviously Jews will debate what it means to them but its blatantly obvious why the anti-Israel movement has chosen, deliberately and sometimes unknowingly to foreground a redefinition of zionism to allow them to say things that otherwise would be open Jew hate. Nobody has to do this. It is perfectly possible to keep using zionism to mean its basic, agreed definition. You dont have to add new meanings to it. You don't have to accept those new meanings. There is no agreed definition of those new meanings. So, like I said. If you are in favour of settlements, say so. If you arent say so. Im not, on the whole, talking about academic debates here. That is different. I am talking about shorthand in conversation, on placards and in chants. And a good rule of thumb is, if you are confused by a word, don't use it

The above posts (and I guess my family’s personal history) is why I said that I am not sure that the term ‘Zionist’ is very helpful any more, as it has become freighted with a very different meaning than that envisaged by Theodore Herzl (inter alia).

Two of my grandparents were Zionists, pogrommed out of Eastern Europe and desperate to live in a Jewish state. Things happened and it didn’t quite work out that way. However, they ceased to call themselves Zionists after Israel was created because it was mission accomplished.

It has been redefined (in some dictionaries) as just believing in the Jews’ right to self determination within Israel. But, unless you are an antisemite, I don’t think anyone questions this, so it is meaningless.

And then you get the modern definitions and the takeover by the left/right divide. Both are equally guilty here. It is as bizarre to me to see non Jews passionately declaring their Zionist credentials as non Palestinians (and those who have no skin in the game) passionately marching week after week under the Palestinian flag. They are both more like football supporters to me than people who genuinely care for the lives of the people in the area.

I thought that the link I provided to a site where the definition of Zionism was discussed by a university teacher of Israeli studies was interesting. I wonder how many read it with an open mind.

‘Jew hate’

What is wrong with ‘antisemitism’, a word with a clear meaning that has worked for centuries?

I mostly see it used against left wingers whose views are ambivalent and not clear antisemitism (though it does sometimes spill over into it).

It’s not Jew hate to describe yourself as anti Zionist if you believe that Zionism is pro the expansion of Israel into the occupied territories. And that is why I don’t like the word.

i have Jewish friends who passionately believe that Israel is a perfect analogy for Apartheid South Africa. I disagree strongly with them, but they aren’t ’Jew Haters’ or ‘self-hating’ Jews (a pretty tough thing to be, really). They just have a different perspective to me.

As a poster said above (sorry not to link), if you don’t try to understand both sides of the discussion, things will never improve.

But Zionism with a capital Z is different to zionism with a small z. Most people wouldn't even know who Herzl is.

You say 'it has been redefined (in some dictionaries) as just believing in the Jews’ right to self determination within Israel. But, unless you are an antisemite, I don’t think anyone questions this, so it is meaningless.' I think lots of people question this. This is precisely the problem and it is very much not meaningless. All the countries that refuse to recognise Israel at the UN for a start. Lots of people on MN, on social media, in real life absolutely question Israel's right to exist. The whole application of the concept of settler colonialism is questioning the zionist premise. All the quibbling about which borders often actually cones down to a position of no acceptable borders. The often heard chant (and associated posters) 'Judaism yes, zionism no. The state of Israe has to go'. The people calling for one non-Jewish state from the river to the sea, where everyone miraculously lives peacefully together. And you say 'unless you are an antisemite' but it is antisemites who like to pretend zionism is much more than it is, so they can be 'anti' it.

I think I may be the poster you're referring to, and yes, this is exactly what I meant about trying to understand what somebody actually believes before deciding what label applies to them.

If someone tells me that by “anti-Zionist” they mean they oppose Israel's existence as a Jewish state, I understand why that raises a very different question from someone who tells me they use it to mean opposition to settlements or expansion into the occupied territories. I may think the second person is using the word inaccurately or unhelpfully, but I don't think it follows that they're secretly expressing the first belief. I'd rather ask them what they actually mean.

That's the bit I think gets lost in these discussions. We spend so much time telling each other what we must really mean instead of listening to what the other person is actually saying.

@SharonEllis ,

The ones chanting ‘from the river to the sea’ are antisemites. Clearly unacceptable (same for Israelis who have appropriated the chant to argue for the expulsion of Palestinians).

However, there is some subtlety here. Those arguing against Israel being a Jewish state and for having one state for all, are not antisemites unless they want to expel the Jews or for the Jews to have lesser rights.

I deeply disagree with the above view as I do think we do still need our own state in order to keep Jews safe. The fact I disagree with it doesn’t make it an antisemitic view, though.

Remember, the common dictionary definition of Zionism is for Jews to have self determination within the area now called Israel. This would be (theoretically) possible within a one state solution as @Squeezingwildoranges suggests. I disagree with her, but I see no evidence of her being antisemitic. It is a political framework which a lot of academics who have studied international studies/politics subscribe to.

@SharonEllis, "where everyone miraculously lives peacefully together".
Why does it have to be miraculous for people of different faiths to live together peacefully? If that concept is totally unacceptable, what do you think is the solution to this conflict?

Oh good lord. Its not the concept that is unacceptable. Obviously. Why would I think that? What evidence do you have that that is not what I would want?

But people will argue with you forever that 'from the river to the sea' is not antisemitic so I think we're going around in circles.

Language is constantly evolving, known as semantic shift. Zionism is an obvious example. I think flexibility is best and we need to acknowledge this. Seems silly to cling on to meanings that are in a state of shift, like fighting against a tide - and by ‘silly’ I don’t mean ‘blessed’ as was once its meaning.

Well I apologise if that is not what you want. It is just that is what I thought you were saying in your post.

Of course language evolves, but I don't think “semantic shift” means that if enough people start using a word to mean something different from both its established definition and what the people who actually identify with that word mean by it, everyone else should simply accept the new meaning.

Zionism is still defined as supporting the existence/development of a Jewish state, not supporting settlements, expansionism or the expulsion of Palestinians. Those are political positions that some Zionists hold and other Zionists strongly oppose.

Words can acquire additional connotations, certainly. But that's different from saying their meaning has simply changed and people who actually identify as Zionists should “be flexible” and accept somebody else's definition of what they believe.

Of course I want people of different faiths to live peacefully together.

Good. Personally I loath all theocracies and ethnocracies. I do not believe, in the 21st century, any country should be defined by a religion whether it is Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Buddhist or whatever. I believe every country should be totally secular with a total separation of religion from state. Everyone should be able to follow their faith without persecution but that faith should have no impact on other peoples lives. Defining a country by a religion naturally creates division and no matter how much people who advocate for it argue it doesn't, it creates a multi tiered society. To that end, would you call me an antizionist and if you do, is it something I should be ashamed about.

@Newbutoldfather Really interesting. As a constantly evolving ideology, I think it’s inevitable that perceptions of Zionism will also evolve.
A snip for anyone interested:
As a scholar of Israel studies who teaches about Zionism, what strikes me when I read such statements is how narrowly they define it, reducing Zionism to a single belief in “the right of the Jewish people to self-determination and statehood in the land of Israel.”
This ignores the fact that there are multiple “Zionisms,” rather than a singular “Zionism,” and that the term has more than just one meaning. It is, at best, oversimplified to describe Zionism only as the belief in the right of Jews to have a Jewish state.
What do Zionists believe?
To be sure, this is how mainstream American Jewish organizations define Zionism. The vast majority of Jewish Americans also think that the “right of the Jewish people to have a Jewish state” is a Zionist belief, according to a March 2025 survey by the Jewish Federations of North America.
Nearly 9 in 10 American Jews said they believed that Israel has the right to exist as a Jewish and democratic state. Yet only around a third identified as Zionists. Why, then, do these Jews not consider themselves Zionists?
This may be because many Jewish Americans think Zionism includes other beliefs, too – beliefs that they do not share. For example, in the same survey around a third thought that “Believing Israel has a right to the West Bank and Gaza Strip” is part of Zionism. Around a quarter believed that “Supporting whatever actions Israel takes” is also part of Zionism.

That's interesting, and I don't disagree that there are multiple forms of Zionism with very different beliefs about what Zionism should look like in practice. But I don't think that supports the point you were making earlier about semantic shift.
In fact, it supports what I was saying. Zionists can disagree about borders, settlements, religion, the Palestinians and Israeli government policy while still being Zionists. My objection is to taking the beliefs of one particular strand of Zionism - such as expansionism - and saying that Zionism itself has now evolved to mean that. “There are multiple forms of Zionism” and “Zionism now means expansionism” are two very different claims.

I don't think I agree with your points about there being different definitions of Zionism. I think it is interpreted differently on the individual level. Much like Islamism and Christian Nationalism, it can be interpreted in a benign way but is easily radicalised leading to conflict and persecution.

I think that's a good way of putting it. Most of my fellow Jews who are Zionists will look at it in terms of 'It's just the desire for a Jewish homeland' and they don't want to look under the hood for the implications of it being somewhere other people already live there.

At the other end of the scale you'll get some leftwing, often antisemitic, people going 'It's a white European colonial ideology that requires the death and subjugation of brown people' and not looking under the hood of why Jewish people might need a homeland (or that not all Jewish people are white, with 40-50% of Jewish Israelis having roots in the middle East or North Africa)

I agree with this.

I'd much prefer for the word to have one clear universally agreed upon meaning. In an ideal world the meaning wouldn't shift due to people using it incorrectly, but I do realise we don't live in an ideal world.

I think my point may have got slightly lost here. I'm not saying there aren't different strands of Zionism, or that individual Zionists don't hold very different political views.

To me, the core meaning of Zionism is simply the belief that Jewish people are entitled to self-determination in the land of Israel. Everything else – borders, settlements, the Palestinians, religion, the current Israeli government etc – involves additional beliefs on which Zionists can and do disagree. That's actually why I object to Zionism itself being redefined to mean expansionism or support for settlements. Some Zionists believe those things and others strongly oppose them. They aren't inherent in the core belief.

That was the point I was also trying to make. Your interpretation of Zionism is very different to that of Daniella Weiss or Rabbi Ovadia Yosef.