#ulaz-progress-notes

[unlearningantizionism]

A major event in my journey away from antizionism was listening to the story of Zionism as narrated by the journalist Haviv Rettig Gur. A vital component of the way Haviv frames Zionism is as a rescue operation.

When the Jews of Germany and Austria attempted to flee from the increasing brutality of the Nazi regime, the European powers closed their doors. Over 200,000 Jews remained in Germany at the start of the war with Poland, and it soon became clear that fleeing Germany was not enough. The Pale was shattered, and six million Jews were killed.

Those who survived were not welcomed kindly by anti-Nazi Allied powers. They remained in camps. They remained until the establishment of Israel.

The establishment of Israel was the rescue of the Jews of Europe.

-

After 1948, when the Arab states had failed in their attempt to destroy the Jewish state, they turned on the Jews in their own countries. Jews who had been there for untold generations, some of the oldest diaspora communities in the world were persecuted, massacred, bombed, and chased out, or fled for their lives.

By the end of the century, the Arab world went from a population of about a million Jews, to that of a few thousand.

The majority of those who fled went to Israel. Israel aided in their escape, from Iraq and from Yemen and from Syria and elsewhere.

The establishment of Israel was the rescue of the Jews of the Arab world.

-

That story is vital to the understanding of Israel.

The antizionist view of Israel and Zionism as fundamentally a settler-colonial project, a project of Europeans staking their last great claim to the global south, is a view that is fundamentally ignorant to the reality of Israel and its population.

Even if Hertzl and Nordau and all the rest were awful people who said awful things of Arabs and of their fellow Jews, it does not change the reality that Israel is the safe harbor in a world that had none to spare, and a world that proved itself utterly unwilling to tolerate Jews the moment it was not beneficial to do so.

These days it is becoming less beneficial every day to tolerate Jews, and Israel is as vital as ever to the survival of the Jewish people.

I highly recommend seeking out talks made by Haviv Rettig Gur. I will attach one video here, but there is much more to be found, including his excellent podcast and his appearances on podcasts produced by the Times of Israel.

Take a moment to learn the history, and use this as a springboard to learn more.

[unlearningantizionism]

I am unlearning antizionism.

I wish I could say there was one definite moment where my views on Israel changed, and I stopped calling myself an Anti-Zionist.

I wish I could say there was one argument that truly convinced me, or one event that made it apparent that I had been wrong all along.

The Anti-Zionism I held to was not by any means moderate; it was radical, it was uncompromising, and it was terribly, terribly wrong.

I was wholly sold on the notion that the entirety of Israel was a colonial enterprise, an apartheid state made up primarily of white-skinned settlers from Western Europe and North America, and that practically the entire nation was full of people whose primary ambition was expansion and control.

All of this is wrong.

I do not claim to have been deceived, I don't think my anti-Zionism came out of some organized attempt to manipulate me. I was ignorant, I lied to myself with the certainty that I knew what needed to be known.

I didn't know. It turned out I didn't even know the basics.

For the most part, my goal with this blog is to keep a record of my thought process, and my journey. Perhaps it will make sense to someone out there. If that someone is you, know that you're not alone.

[unlearningantizionism]

Something I have observed in parts of antizionist argumentation is that the antizionist will make oversimplified generalisations about Zionism and Zionists, but when challenged on their statements will retreat to a more easily defensible position by adding adjectives or formulating a definition that makes their earlier statement more palatable.

This is what we might call motte-and-bailey argumentation. Texas Democratic Primary candidate Maureen Galindo provides us with an excellent example to illustrate this.

In an Instagram post made recently, Galindo promised to write legislation that will criminalise "[...] all Zionism and support of Zionism [...]", and "turn Karnes ICE Detention Center into a prison for American Zionists [...]". The post further stated that "[The detention centre] will also be a castration processing center for pedophiles which will probably be most of the Zionists."

Let us partition these statements made by Galindo.

Zionism should be a criminal offence in the US.

"Support of Zionism" should also be a criminal offence.

Offenders (Zionists) should be imprisoned.

Pedophiles should be castrated.

Most Zionists are pedophiles.

For the purposes of this post we will ignore the third and fourth arguments, though I will state that I vehemently disagree with both statements. They are not my focus here.

Galindo does not define Zionism in her original post, and so the reader is left to intuit what is meant by this. Zionists will naturally we aware that Zionism is a broad umbrella term, which shares one primary notion, and we can rely on the definition formulated in the Basel Program of the First Zionist Congress for the purpose of this post: "Zionism strives to create for the Jewish people a home in Palestine secured by public law." (from Zionism, Britannica, 2026). The inverse of this, the disestablishment of a Jewish home in Palestine secured by public law, is antizionism (though there are complexities I will not account for here, for brevity's sake).

Whether Galindo intended for her readers to assume the aforementioned definition of Zionism, however, is not for us to know. What we do know is what she said in response to the backlash her post rightfully incurred. From Newsweek's article Who is Maureen Galinco? (2026), quoting Galindo herself, "When I say I want billionaire Zionists in prison, that does not mean I want Jews in internment camps." In a subsequent quote we get what passes for her definition of Zionism.

"I don't care what religion you are. If you are a Zionist, —meaning that you believe that you are just entitled to land or someone's just entitled to land based off of religious beliefs, and that you'll kill all of the Semites for it—then yeah, I think that you're a danger to humanity and belong in prison, especially if you have the political and economic resources to make that happen."

This is the retreat in action. Galindo adds the adjective "billionaire", which was not present in her original Instagram post, and establishes a unique post-hoc definition of Zionism and applies it to her argumentation. I do not know if she held this definition in mind when she made her original Instagram post or not, but it certainly appears to be in the style of a motte-and-bailey argument. What is not in doubt is that the injection of the term "billionaire" is a retreat from a bailey to a motte.

For the purposes of this post I will not even touch the manner in which she uses the term "Semite", though I will again note my utter opposition to the way in which it is utilized in her arguments.

When people like Galindo employ this strategy, they demonstrate their bad faith approach to the topic at hand. It will not come as a surprise to anyone that a politician is arguing in bad faith, of course, but there is a distinction I believe needs to be made between the usual vague promises of politicians, and promises of actual harm against vaguely defined groups of people. "Zionists", in the manner in which Galindo defines them, is enormously vague even in the context of these two elements I have looked at here. "Support of Zionism" is even less vague, but according Galindo's original post it appears to be due the same penalty as that afforded to "Zionists."

As many on jumblr have already noted, Galindo is no great innovator in this field. This is something we have seen before, and unfortunately we will continue to see.

[unlearningantizionism]

An ever-present element in the antizionist communities in which I previously spent my time, and in the mentality of many antizionists including my former self, is a willful anti-American or anti-Israel contrarianism which permeates all discourse. This anti-Americanism is, for many antizionists, tethered inseparably to their antizionism.

Now, let it be said from the start that I am not some shill for the United States. I have major issues with the country and its presumptive role on the world stage, not just under Trump but also under its more liberal eras. The contrarianism I experienced, however, is not based in reality, or if it is, then it does not function to interact with reality.

It is in effect a reflexive and often uncritical support for any enemy of the United States, and also of Israel. It may take the form of excusing actions made by this enemy, denying or minimizing the ways in which the values and goals of the enemy doesn't align with the values and goals of the speaker, voicing support or signal boosting for this enemy, or proudly displaying the symbols of this enemy.

Examples of such enemies of the US and Israel are Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, or the Houthis, to name only the most known and most seen.

From the outside it is rather baffling to see queer, self-proclaimed socialists, whose apartment walls are draped with a trans flag on one side and a Hezbollah flag on the other, loudly cheer for Houthi rockets with neopronouns in their bios. For those steeped in a certain noxious antizionism, however, it becomes entirely not baffling, and indeed par for the course. For them, these enemies of the US or Israel are their allies. My beloved queer friends, you are wrong.

Part of what drove me away from antizionism was seeing self-described leftists cheer on such aforementioned enemies, and use every poor argument in the book to argue that Iran's brutal violence against queer people is perfectly excusable within dialectical materialism, or that the Houthi "a curse upon the Jews"-flag is actually a brilliant bit of Gen-Z ragebaiting and not at all reflective of any actual antisemitism on the part of the radicals themselves.

No. Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis are not my friends and they are not worthy of my support, even as I still firmly believe in Palestinian self-determination and in the betterment of conditions for Israeli Arabs and Muslims within a Jewish Israel.

It is hard to fathom how I could ever have believed they were.

I can't believe I ever lent my voice in support.

It's easy to deny that I ever did.

But I won't deny it.

I was wrong.

[unlearningantizionism]

In my experience, many antizionists are not familiar with the security risks and precautions Jewish communites - note, not specifically pro-Israel political events, just Jewish communities such as schools, synagogues, community centers, elderly care facilities, and evidently also volunteer ambulance parking lots - have to maintain to ensure the safety of their members.

What other communities in Europe require this much protection? What other communities are targets of such threats and violence that they need armed guard, or concrete barricades, or fences with locked gates, or security cameras covering every angle of entry? What other community centers are forced to require ID checks, and keep the addresses of community events closely guarded, out of fear for their members?

While other communities may have security measures, few require as much as Jewish communities do.

Why?

-

In my country there was a terrorist attack on the 25th of June 2022. A man aligned with Daesh (ISIS) shot and killed two people, and injured 21 others, in an attack that was motivated by hatred of the queer community. In response, the Pride event was cancelled, and security was tightened around subsequent events.

Cameras, police presence, vehicles or concrete barricates blocking large entryways, and events held behind fences. This didn't just happen in my country, it has happened throughout Europe and elsewhere, and has caused such security and counter-terrorist measures to be implemented at pride rallies and parades.

Why?

-

When it's not about Jews, the answer is easy: It's bigotry, it's hate, it's terrorism. It's targeted threats and violence against a community for being who they are.

When it's about Jews, somehow people make it so much more complicated. But it isn't more complicated: It's bigotry, it's hate, it's terrorism. It's targeted threats and violence against a community for being who they are.

Antisemitism is alive and well in Europe, it is not a bygone bigotry and it has not been eradicated. Many non-Jewish antizionists just don't see it, and if they do see it, they're already quite prone to deny it, justify it, excuse it, or dismiss it.

[unlearningantizionism]

I sincerely believe, perhaps naively to some, that the majority of leftist antizionists are not antisemites in their hearts. When an antizionist tells me that their primary concern is for Palestinian lives, I believe them and I sincerely try to discuss the issue from that perspective. (I tend to pull out of discussions where I am not afforded the same degree of respect, but that's a story for another time...)

There is, however, a limit to such respect. On both sides of the equation there are radical elements who will tolerate or even amplify extremely harmful rhetoric, because it is coming from their own side. This happens on the antizionist side just as it happens on the Zionist side of the argument. In my time I have seen plenty of outright antisemitism from antizionists and I've seen Kahanist or Islamophobic sentiment from Zionists, too.

This blog is about antizionism so that will be my focus, but let it not be said that I discount those on "my side" that exhibit extremely problematic views.

-

In antizionist spaces I used to frequent, it was not terribly uncommon to see sentiment that presented itself as believeably antizionist, but which held antisemitic kernels or elements. Statements such as "Israel controls Discord so be careful what you say", or "Israel controls US foreign policy" were not challenged, instead permitted or even acknowledged as truths not requiring discussion. These statements are, of course, false.

They also contain kernels of antisemitism. The claim that Israel controls Discord, for instance, is perhaps based in the true fact that the creators of Discord are Jewish. The false connection is the common antisemitic sentiment that Jews are unfailingly loyal only to Israel, or that being Jewish necessarily means Israel has a hand in what you make or operate. "Israel controls Discord" has the appearance of antizionism, but it veils antisemitism. Apply the same idea of this shadowy cabal behind it all to the US foreign policy claim, and you see the connection. It veils antisemitism.

I believe, however, that these statements are not necessarily made with antisemitic intent. Doubtless some do have antisemitic intent, it is not lost on me that many veiled statements such as those above have their origins in antisemitic far-right circles that specifically coin phrases amenable to the antizionist left...

Howerver, I don't think necessarily those leftists who repeat these statements have some deep-held antisemitism in their hearts, and it isn't even for me to say if they do.

But to reference the YouTuber Ian Danskin: They are, at least some of the time, doing antisemitism.

That is a problem.

[unlearningantizionism]

A deeply heartbreaking moment, in my deradicalization experience, was seeing first-hand the ways in which leftist antizionists, people I considered to be friends and allies, would so quickly turn on me and call me a liar.

The perception was that all defenders of Israel lie, and everything must be interpreted as a lie, a distortion of the truth, or veiling a hidden agenda.

The term "hasbara" came up a fair bit, and the way it was utilized by them was as a classic thought-terminating cliche - that is, a phrase meant to stop critical thought or evaluation.

Allow me to present an example.

I pointed out that there was no pre-existing independent Israel or Palestine prior to the 1948 division, instead the Mandate had communities engaged in wars between one another. There was not a militarily superior independent Israel invading a meek and repressed independent Palestine.

My statement was called "hasbara", and so it was dismissed out of hand, without being evaluated or taken into consideration. My statement is not a matter of opinion, it is historical fact, but it was waved away.

This statement of mine was made to counter a statement by an antizionist, that "Israel had invaded Palestine in 1948 and conquered it." This statement is perhaps to some so bafflingly ignorant and ahistorical it should by rights disqualify anyone from intelligent discourse, but I engaged out of a desire to have a common ground of understanding. It wasn't received well, and I was branded a liar and manipulator.

The notion that those who argue for Israel always lie, always twist the truth, or have a hidden agenda, is rooted in the antisemitic notion that Jews lie, and Jews cannot be trusted. By extension, Zionists cannot be trusted, even to repeat historical fact.

I am not even yet a completed convert, and yet I was accused.

The moment I was no longer on their side, I was a lying Jew as bad as any other, facts be damned.

[unlearningantizionism]

Much of anti-Zionist rhetoric, in my experience both personally and in the communities with which I engaged when I was anti-Zionist, doubting anti-Zionism, and rejecting anti-Zionism, concerned a perception of Israel's crimes as unprecedented, or of such a scale that it fundamentally delegitimized the entire state.

There was an idea that the Nakba - which I still fully regard as a horrific act of violence, to be clear - was a crime so heinous in its scope and scale that it renders Israel illegitimate. It's a sympathetic argument to be sure, because who could support the continued existence of a state which was founded on ethnic cleansing?

However, I always struggled to see it as unprecedented.

After all, ethnic cleansing was not a new phenomenon in the process of building a nation-state in the 1900s, both before and after the Holocaust.

I say this not to excuse the Nakba, but to provide historical context for the express purpose of demonstrating that it was not unprecedented.

The so-called Population Exchange between the Kingdom of Greece and the newly established Republic of Türkiye displaced more people than the Nakba did.

The conflict between the Kurds and the states of Syria and Iraq have been going on since the founding of the states themselves, and have killed and displaced more people than Israel has ever done.

The Partition of India killed and displaced more people than Israel has ever done.

Are Greece, Türkiye, Syria, Iraq, India, and Pakistan also made fundamentally illegitimate by such actions? If you say yes, then I must applaud your integrity, because most anti-Zionists I have met would say no. In their eyes, Israel is still uniquely illegitimate... and one has to wonder why.

If this is the argument, that Israel is illegitimate due to its historic and ongoing violence but Iraq is not, Syria is not, Iran is not, no other country besides Israel...? Then I struggle to see the intellectual honesty.

So, to me, this argument is illegitimate. In my experience it rests on ignorance, or at least a focus that is so narrow that it becomes myopic and dishonest.

If the Nakba is a horrific crime which should tar the reputation of Israel until its victims are compensated - and it IS - then the same goes for Greece, Türkiye, Syria, Iraq, India, Pakistan, and the numerous other countries whose founding came out of or relied on ethnic cleansing or brutal intercommunal violence.

Israel should not cease to exist any more or any sooner than any of them.