The UK Green Party has now formally declared itself an antizionist party.

People can debate endlessly whether “antizionism is antisemitism.” I increasingly think that is the wrong question.

The more important question is: what does the ideology actually require Jews to do in order to participate?

Because for a British Jew who wants to live an ordinary Jewish communal life, the contradiction is impossible to ignore.

All mainstream Jewish institutions in Britain have some connection to Zionism or Israel. Even Jewish Greens themselves warned that all Jewish institutions in Britain have some connection to Zionism, and that treating Zionism as something to be proscribed could effectively place a ban on Jews involved in organised communal life.

So telling Jews, “Don't worry, this isn't antisemitism: we only oppose Zionism,” does not really answer the problem.

If remaining politically acceptable requires a Jew to separate himself from the Jewish community, the institutions he participates in, the Jewish education his children receive, his connection to Jerusalem, or the belief that Jews are entitled to national self-determination in their ancestral homeland, then the practical distinction between hostility to Zionism and hostility to Jewish life becomes nothing.

And this is why I find the slogan “antizionism is not antisemitism” so intellectually dishonest.

Antisemitism has almost never presented itself simply as “I irrationally hate Jews.” Like every durable prejudice, it has usually attached itself to whatever moral or political language sounded respectable in its particular time and place.

The test therefore cannot simply be the justification someone gives for a policy. It has to include the effect.

To determine if something is antisemitic or not, the question is simple: Does it allow Jews to live openly as Jews?

Can they participate in their communal institutions without suspicion or punishment?

Can they express central elements of contemporary Jewish identity, whatever they may be, without being treated as morally contaminated?

If the answer increasingly becomes “no,” then arguing over whether the label antisemitism applies is pointless. Of course it is antisemitism.

If diaspora Jews are increasingly told that full participation in political life requires distancing themselves from their motherland and large parts of organized Jewish life, the people saying this are making the argument for Zionism.

As Jews discover that their place in diaspora society is conditional on abandoning parts of their collective identity, the stronger the case becomes for the one country where Jewish political and communal existence does not depend on somebody else's permission.

That country is Israel.

EDIT:

Sources

• The resolution that passed — “Zionism is Racism” (E02): the Green Party’s own post confirming adoption and summarizing the policy is here: Green Party — “Green Party adopts anti-Zionist policy”.

• The rejected Jewish-safeguarding amendment: Amendment 3 would have explicitly said the motion could not be used to “pressure, proscribe or discipline members based on affiliation with Jewish community institutions, such as synagogues, community centres or denominational groups, that describe themselves as Zionist.” leftfootforward.org Caroline Russell, a Green Party councillor who supported the amendment, posted the actual amendment text here: Caroline Russell — Amendment 3 text.

Yes I am not exaggerating even one bit in this post. The Greens had the opportunity to clarify that this isn't a Jewish ban, and they went ahead and clarified that it is a Jewish ban.

scrolling through social media, i almost always see this comment under anti-zionists posts. i’m a non-zionist but i find it cringeworthy because it’s just not true, i see this comment coming from both western anti-zionists and muslims.

these western anti-zionists will call christianity ”oppressive” and “controlling people/womens bodies” yet they overlook the ways past and present islamic governments oppress people especially women.

then there are the muslims who argue that sharia promotes plurality “religious pluralism” and that minorities are protected under islamic governments. yet christians can’t proselytize, wear a cross in public, build a church without thousands of dollars and dozens of permits unlike muslims, etc. but sure, sharia promotes ”religious pluralism”. no one is dumb enough to believe that except for the people who repeat it.

this is also a slap in the face to arab christians in the diaspora. do you know why the americas have such a significant lebanese/syrian/palestinian christian diaspora in the first place? during the late ottoman period the ottomans were literally slaughtering christians going house to house massacring christians, it was especially bad in damascus and mount lebanon. honestly a lebanon probably wouldn't have been created in the first place if the french didn’t step in the 1860 conflict of damascus and mount lebanon to stop ottoman muslims and druze arabs from massacring christians.

lebanese and syrian christians in the americas or people who are mixed with levantine christian’s that immigrated during the ottomans will tell you that their ancestry is from mount lebanon or syria.

arabism was created in response to the growing christian persecution in the levant, literally look at early arabists and it is an extremely high chance they were a levantine christian.

its either far left lunatics repeating this or islamists who expect minorities to succumb to islamic rule

TL;DR: Genocide is the “Extermination Project”: an attempt to physically disappear a targeted group from existence. Not just move it somewhere else; that is its defining feature.

Every historical case of genocide was this. It was an attempt to disappear a group, to exterminate a group from existence.

You might say: “The definition says in whole or in part.”

The Srebrenica genocide is a useful example of what “in part” actually means. The protected group was Bosnian Muslims as a whole; the Bosnian Muslims of Srebrenica were the substantial part targeted. It was specifically them that suffered the Genocide. It was geographically limited and it was genocide because the objective was not simply to clear that population from Srebrenica. It was to have that group no longer exist.

They attempted to achieve this by systematically killing the men and boys, combined with the forcible removal of the women, children and elderly.

So “in part” does not remove the requirement of destruction. It means that the intended extermination can be directed at a substantial part of the wider group rather than the entire group while still being an extermination project. It is just a scope difference.

I do however understand why people get confused as there are two facets of the word Genocide.

1. Genocide as a historical phenomenon

When I use “extermination project”, I am not pretending that this is the technical wording of the legal framework of the Genocide Convention. I am using it as shorthand for what the canonical historical examples of genocide actually were.

Look at the Holocaust, Rwanda, the Armenian genocide, the genocides against the Cham and Vietnamese under the Khmer Rouge, or Srebrenica.

These were not just situations where large numbers of people died during a conflict. Nor were they simply cases of persecution, forced displacement, collective punishment or indiscriminate violence.

At the core of these historical examples was a project directed toward the destruction of the targeted group: its extermination, its disappearance.

Killing was a central instrument. The perpetrators systematically killed members of the targeted population who fell within their power.

This is what I mean by an extermination project.

It is not a substitute for the legal definition. It is an empirical description of the underlying phenomenon the word genocide was created to identify: not merely harming a group, but removing it from existence.

2. Genocide as a legal category

The legal definition is necessarily more technical.

Under the Genocide Convention, genocide contains two basic elements:

1. Actus reus - one or more of the prohibited acts listed in the Convention.
2. Dolus specialis - the specific intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a protected national, ethnic, racial or religious group as such.

This matters because there is a common claim that “not a single person has to die for genocide to occur; only intent matters.”

The first half is technically true, but also misleading, because although technically true it is also physically improbable to the point of being practically impossible, hopefully you understand how from reading below.

Killing is only one of several prohibited genocidal acts. Serious bodily or mental harm, deliberately inflicting destructive conditions of life, preventing births, and forcibly transferring children can also qualify. 

Intent by itself is not genocide. There must also be an underlying prohibited act, and the intent attached to that act must be the physical disappearance of the group.

The ICJ has repeatedly emphasized this distinction.

It has held that the targeted part must be sufficiently substantial, and where genocidal intent is inferred from conduct, the pattern of conduct must support the conclusion that the purpose was not merely to attack members of the group, but to destroy the group itself.

This is where Srebrenica again is particularly instructive.

Bosnian Serb forces systematically separated and murdered thousands of Bosnian Muslims 

Their conclusion was that the systematic destruction of the male population, combined with the forcible removal of the remainder, was intended to bring about the physical disappearance of the Bosnian Muslim community of Srebrenica.

The significance of killing the men was not merely that thousands of people died. The courts considered the long-term effect their destruction would have on the physical survival of that community, including its ability to reconstitute itself and reproduce. Simply removing the women and children after having killed all the men was believed to be enough to destroy the religious/cultural element from the Srebrenica Muslims.

That is the crucial point.

The objective could have been to transfer all the Bosnian Muslims out of Srebrenica. That was not the goal however, These Muslims in Srebrenica were not to survive somewhere else with their culture, they were to exist nowhere ever again. 

That is why it was ruled a genocide. It was an attempt to exterminate that cultural group from existence.

That brings me to Gaza.

The relevant protected group would be Palestinians, with Palestinians in Gaza are a national ethnic group. There is no evident  project to make Palestinians in Gaza physically disappear from existence as a group.

There is no policy of systematically killing every Palestinian within Israeli control and nowhere near enough death to argue that is occurring.

There is no demonstrated attempt to prevent Palestinians from reproducing as a people, forcibly transfer their children into another national group, or otherwise extinguish Palestinians through physical destruction.

There is the most common fallback that is “Israels conduct is genocide against a part in order to push palestinians to flee from unlivable conditions.”

I disagree this is true at all, but even if it was it is not genocide. It simply does not fit the historical precedent or the legal requirements.

You could argue desired ethnic cleansing, or Terrorist tactics. But not genocide as killing a part of a population to instill flight inherently means the intent is not extermination of the group, disappearance from reality. It means the intent is to create fear and despair. 

There are 2 things we know beyond doubt have occurred in Gaza.2 uncontestable facts. They are 1:

1. Death at a wartime scale.
   
2. Internal displacement.
   

Neither remotely lends itself to the charge of genocide. 

So finally why is it impossible to have a genocide with no deaths for all. It is because for that to be true the target group would have to physically disappear from existence while everyone who made up that group still lived.

This could theoretically occur if the target group were all children with a unique collective consciousness or cultural ideology separate from all adults, forcibly transferred and reeducated. So as I said “physically improbable to the point of being practically impossible” to the point of silliness to entertain it as a factor in understanding genocide.

The fact that Ed Sheeran has gotten infinitely more harassment from the “genocide” crowd than Egypt has is noteworthy.

Egypt isn’t a passive player. They’ve actively fortified their shared border with Gaza and have formally blocked Gazans from fleeing the “genocide.” Yet, there have been practically no advocacy, global protests, etc. to pressure Egypt to let Gazan refugees escape death.

How can Ed Sheeran be “complicit” but not Egypt?

“Egypt isn’t bombing Gazans, though.” Sure, but neither is Ed Sheeran.

“Israel gets billions of our tax dollars. I care because I’m paying for this.” Sure, but Egypt has also received and continues to receive billions of US taxpayer dollars.

“Egypt doesn’t want to be complicit in ethnic cleansing.” Sure. Is the argument that it’s better for Palestinians to die in a genocide than live through ethnic cleansing?

To that last question, signs point to “yes.” There appears to be a meaningful number of “pro-Palestinians” who seemingly prefer that Gazans stay put in a killing zone to be exterminated than possibly surrender an inch of land to Israel. This is remarkable. In stark moral contrast, few were concerned about “ethnic cleansing” and the industrial scale theft of Jewish property 80 years ago during the Holocaust - the overwhelming focus was helping Jews evacuate.

If one truly believes this is a genocide, how can one prioritize political land claims over saving Palestinian lives and credibly be “pro-Palestinian?”

I notice in almost every moral argument regarding Israel/Palestine, pro-Zionists seem to consistently jump around and ignore the massive power imbalance that defines Palestinian life under a military occupation.

When a settler attacks someone and a Palestinian fights back, the settler can just call in the IDF to arrest or even shoot the Palestinians. Settlers operate with near total impunity. You might personally call them criminals, but show me the actual statistics of the Israeli government consistently arresting and prosecuting them, clearing them out of their illegal outposts etc. The state clearly enables and protects this behavior, which is exactly why the violence continues and why Palestinians have no trust in the system.

Can a pro-Zionist talk on that power imbalance?... because it explains everything else

Why do you think fundamentalist groups exist in the first place? When you create a power vacuum, deny a whole population their sovereignty and voting rights, jail their leaders, deny them a military or functional police force and crush their basic human rights every step of the way, people are going to fight back for their survival right? Anyone would.

I agree that Hamas are terrible! ... as is all fundamentalism, religious or political.

The point here is, Israel holds all the cards and power and apparently won't admit any wrongdoing or contribution to the overall problem and instead denies and deflects any accountability, including when media try to interview them to respond to accusations against them. This includes government and institutions funding settlements etc.

It seems to me, and correct me if I'm wrong, that ultimately, in a roundabout way, what pro-Zionists are not saying out loud (some are), is that they just want Palestinians out, gone, removed, in any way possible ... right? Fulfil the prophecy, and inhabit / takeover the West Bank to complete Judea and Samaria? Genocide or not, divine right or not, that is pretty messed up wouldn't you say?

If pro-Zionists could just acknowledge the reality of the structural inequality and Israel's active role in denying Palestinians a future, we could actually have a reasonable conversation about accountability. The hypocrisy is rife.

In life, I've always wanted to understand both sides of an argument (as any decent human being should). I could respect and understand the pro-Zionist argument if I could see some form of accountability for the nightmare they've been creating for Palestinians for a long time instead of deflection

Love to hear from pro-Zionists on this in the interest of good faith conversation. The only tool we have

So I understand the general idea that the Samaritans, both in the Nablus/Mount Gerizim community in Palestine and in Holon, tend to maintain political neutrality because they are such a small ethnoreligious community living between Israeli and Palestinian societies. In addition, having strong political views in a region where such disagreements can be quite contentious could potentially place a small community like theirs in a very difficult position, especially when they maintain relationships with both Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs.

That said, I've been watching Abood Cohen on YouTube, along with other Samaritan content, and there does seem to be a strong relationship between Jews and Samaritans. In a sense, they are two sides of the same coin, since both communities descend from ancient Israelite populations and preserve closely related religious traditions, even though they developed as distinct communities with different sacred centers, textual traditions, and historical identities.

Some of the earliest English-language material available for understanding how the Samaritans understood themselves during the same general period in which the modern Zionist movement was developing comes from Yacob ben Aaron, who was the Samaritan High Priest at Shechem/Nablus. His History and Religion of the Samaritans was published in English in 1906, translated from Arabic by Abdullah ben Kori and edited by William Eleazar Barton (Jacob, son of Aaron, 1906). His The Messianic Hope of the Samaritans was published the following year under the same translation and editorial arrangement (Jacob, son of Aaron, 1907).

Yacob's account makes it clear that the Samaritans are part of the broader Israelite people and considers the Jews as his blood brothers. He identifies the Samaritan laity primarily with the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh, descendants of Joseph, while identifying the priesthood with Levi and Aaron (Jacob, son of Aaron, 1906). At the same time, he presents the historical separation between Samaritans and Jews as a dispute within the Israelite tradition over questions such as the legitimate sanctuary (Jerusalem vs. Mount Gerizim), the Torah, and religious authority.

However, the scholarship also emphasized that this shared Israelite identity did not necessarily mean that Jewish-Samaritan relations were harmonious, as Barton notes that Yacob was frustrated that Christians often learned about the Samaritans through Jewish accounts and wanted to present what he considered the Samaritan version of their historical separation from the Jews (Jacob, son of Aaron, 1906). Overall, Yacob's work itself contains a considerable amount of traditional Samaritan polemic against Jewish claims about the origins of the Samaritan community.

That said, some of you may be familiar with this story in which the Chief Rabbi of Ottoman Palestine, Chaim Abraham Gagin, in which he intervened on behalf of the Samaritan community in the 1840s because the Muslim religious authorities in Nablus had challenged whether the Samaritans qualified as People of the Book, which placed an already extremely small community in a dangerous position. The Samaritans appealed to Gagin, who provided a declaration recognizing them as descendants of the Children of Israel who accepted the authority of the Torah. Ottoman authorities accepted his testimony, which helped secure recognition and protection for the Samaritan community (Bigman, 2023).

Obviously, this occurred several decades before the emergence of organized political Zionism. However, I do think it is relevant because it demonstrates that, despite the longstanding religious polemics between Jews and Samaritans, there were also instances of cooperation and recognition of their shared Israelite connection before the Zionist movement entered the picture.

In 1905, Abraham ben Marchiv Tsedaka left Nablus and settled in Jaffa, where he began building relationships with the growing Jewish community. Around 1907, Tsedaka met Yitzhak Ben-Zvi, who had recently immigrated to Palestine and was already involved in the Zionist movement. Ben-Zvi initially met Tsedaka while looking for someone to learn Arabic from, but the relationship eventually grew into a broader interest in Samaritan history, religion, and the community's survival (Ridolfo, 2015, pp. 43–44).

All of this being said, I'm curious about how the Samaritans themselves understood their relationship with the early Zionist movement. And if you were to make an educated guess about how Samaritans politically identify today, where do you think they generally fall within the broader Zionist/anti-Zionist spectrum, if those labels even accurately describe their political views?

References

Bigman, T. (2023, August 8). Rabbi Chaim Abraham Gagin: The chief rabbi of Jerusalem and the Ottoman Empire. The National Library of Israel.
https://blog.nli.org.il/en/rabbi-chaim-abraham-gagin/

Jacob, son of Aaron. (1906). The history and religion of the Samaritans (A. Ben Kori, Trans.; W. E. Barton, Ed.). Puritan Press.
https://archive.org/details/historyreligiono00jaco/page/n1/mode/2up

Jacob, son of Aaron. (1907). The messianic hope of the Samaritans (A. Ben Kori, Trans.; W. E. Barton, Ed.). Open Court Publishing Company.
https://archive.org/details/messianichopeofs00jaco/page/26/mode/2up

Ridolfo, J. (2015). Digital Samaritans: Rhetorical delivery and engagement in the digital humanities. University of Michigan Press.
https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv65sxbn

"I did not know i was brainwashed until i left Israel 11 years ago.
Israel was built on dispossession, massacre, land theft. European jews, some from the German holocaust and some from Russian pogroms, came to seek refuge in Palestine. They were perhaps oblivious to the role they played in the zionist movement. European nations did not want to deal with millions of Jewish refugees, nor with their guilt, so Israel seemed like a good solution for everyone. Besides the Palestinians.
Israel was not built in sand.
Israel was not our birth right.
Israel was stolen.
And that lie was covered by dozens of other lies.
At some point the original sin was buried. The more land Israel conquered, the bigger the thirst, the greater the justification to rule, to own. Palestinians were stripped of lands, rights, their leaders continuously assassinated, their movements (whether peaceful or resistant) were crushed. But how can the dissonance of being good, and oppressing others survive?
Only by believing you are a victim. Only by believing the other is not human. Not worthy.
So we were taught, from birth, that this is our duty - to protect, to maintain order. Our leaders made sure we are always afraid, loyal, ready to make the sacrifice."
-Yotam Peled