[msh-tlba]

Opposition to Zionism

Main article: Anti-Zionism
See also: Non-Zionism, Post-Zionism, Neo-Zionism, New Antisemitism, and Criticism of Israel
Zionism is opposed by a wide variety of organizations and individuals. Among those opposing Zionism are some secular Jews,[70] some branches of Judaism (Satmar Hasidim and Neturei Karta), the former Soviet Union,[71] some African-Americans,[72] many in the Muslim world, and Palestinians. Reasons for opposing Zionism are varied, and include the perceptions of unfair land confiscation, expulsions of Palestinians, violence against Palestinians, and alleged racism. Arab states in particular strongly oppose Zionism, which they believe is responsible for the 1948 Palestinian exodus.
Catholic Church and Zionism

The initial response of the Catholic Church was one of strong opposition to Zionism. Shortly after the 1897 Basle Conference, the semi-official Vatican periodical (edited by the Jesuits) Civilta Cattolica gave its biblical-theological judgement on political Zionism: "1827 years have passed since the prediction of Jesus of Nazareth was fulfilled ... that [after the destruction of Jerusalem] the Jews would be led away to be slaves among all the nations and that they would remain in the dispersion [diaspora, galut] until the end of the world." The Jews should not be permitted to return to Palestine with sovereignty: "According to the Sacred Scriptures, the Jewish people must always live dispersed and vagabondo [vagrant, wandering] among the other nations, so that they may render witness to Christ not only by the Scriptures ... but by their very existence". Nonetheless, Theodore Herzl travelled to Rome in late January 1904, after the sixth Zionist Congress (August, 1903) and six months before his death, looking for some kind of support. In January 22, Herzl first met the Secretary of State, Cardinal Merry del Val. According to Herzl's private diary notes, the Cardinal agreed on the history of Israel being the same as the one of the Catholic Church, but asked beforehand for a conversion of Jews to Catholicism. Three days later, Herzl met Pope Pius X, who replied to his request of support for a Jewish return to Israel in the same terms, saying that "we are unable to favor this movement. We cannot prevent the Jews going to Jerusalem, but we could never sanction it ... The Jews have not recognized our Lord, therefore we cannot recognize the Jewish people." In 1922 the same recourse of preordained divine judgment in the Bible was utilized by the same periodical to oppose Zionism, alleging that the rejection and killing of Jesus by the Jews condemned them in the eyes of Catholics. This initial attitude changed over the next 50 years, until 1997, when at the Vatican symposium of that year, Pope John Paul II rejected the Christian roots of anti-Semitism, expressing that "... the wrong and unjust interpretations of the New Testament relating to the Jewish people and their supposed guilt [in Christ's death] circulated for too long, engendering sentiments of hostility toward this people."[73]
Characterization as colonialism

Zionism has been characterized as colonialism, and Zionism has been criticized for promoting unfair confiscation of land, involving expulsion of indigenous peoples, and causing violence towards Palestinians. The characterization of Zionism as colonialism has been described by Nur Masalha, Gershon Shafir, Michael Prior, Ilan Pappe, and Baruch Kimmerling.[74]
Noam Chomsky, John P. Quigly, Nur Masalha, and Cheryl Rubenberg have described the criticism of Zionism that it unfairly confiscates land and expels Palestinians.[75]
Edward Said and Michael Prior claim that the notion of expelling the indigenous population was an early component of Zionism, citing Herzl's diary from 1895 which states "we shall endeavour to expel the poor population across the border unnoticed - the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly."[76] However, Derek Penslar claims that Herzl may have been considering South America, not Palestine, when he wrote the diary entry about expropriation.[77]
Ilan Pappe argued that Zionism results in ethnic cleansing.[78]
Saleh Abdel Jawad, Nur Masalha, Michael Prior, Ian Lustick, and John Rose have described a criticism of Zionism that it has been responsible for violence against Palestinians, such as the Deir Yassin massacre, Sabra and Shatila massacre, and Cave of the Patriarchs massacre.[79]
Mahatma Gandhi rejected Zionism, famously saying that "Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French. It is wrong and inhuman to impose the Jews on the Arabs... Surely it would be a crime against humanity to reduce the proud Arabs so that Palestine can be restored to the Jews partly or wholly as their national home." Gandhi rejected the idea of a Jewish State in Palestine, saying that Biblical concepts of Palestine didn't constitute geographical tracts, and that the "real Jerusalem is the spiritual Jerusalem".[80][81]
Characterization as racist

See also: Racism in Israel#Zionism, Israel, Palestinians, and the United Nations, and Israel and the apartheid analogy
Some critics of Zionism describe it as racist or discriminatory.[82] Some criticisms of Zionism specifically identify Judaism's notion of "chosen people" as the source of racism in Zionism.[83]
In December 1973, the UN passed a series of resolutions condemning South Africa and included a reference to an "unholy alliance between Portugese colonialism, Apartheid and Zionism."[84] At the time there was little cooperation between Israel and South Africa.[85] Parallels have also been drawn between aspects of South Africa's apartheid regime and certain Israeli policies toward the Palestinians, which are seen as manifestations of racism in Zionist thinking.[86][87][88]
Following the oil embargo and with Soviet, Islamic and African support the Arab League was able to wield its numeric advantage in the UN General Assembly to pass, in 1975, Resolution 3379, which said that "Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination". In 1991 the resolution was repealed with UN General Assembly Resolution 46/86,[89] after Israel declared that it would only participate in the Madrid Conference of 1991 if the resolution were revoked.[90]
Arab countries attempted to equate Zionism with racism once more, in connection with a 2001 UN conference on racism, which took place in Durban, South Africa,[91] which caused the United States and Israel to walk away from the conference as a response. The final text of the conference did not connect Zionism with racism. A human rights forum arranged in connection with the conference, on the other hand, did equate Zionism with racism and censured Israel for what it called "racist crimes, including acts of genocide and ethnic cleansing".[92]
Some critics of Zionism have described Israel's Law of return as racist because it discriminates against Arabs,[93] while the official position of the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs is that "the Law of Return is not a privilege set apart for members of the Jewish faith and denied to non-Jews; the bestowal of the 'right of return' to Israel to non-Jews or to persons without a Jewish relative is illogical and contradicts the principal purpose of setting up a Jewish State as prescribed by the UN Resolution of November 1947, the Balfour Declaration of 1917 and the League of Nations Mandate of 1922."[94] Palestinians and advocates for Palestinian refugee rights criticize the Law of Return, which they compare to the Palestinian claim to a right of return.[94] These critics consider the Law, as contrasted against the denial of the right of Palestinian refugees to return, as offensive and as institutionalized ethnic discrimination.[95]
Anti-Zionism as anti-Semitism

Main articles: Anti-Zionism#Anti-Zionism and antisemitism and New Antisemitism
It is argued by some scholars that the opposition to Zionism at the more extreme fringes may be hard to separate from antisemitism.[96]
Anti-semites have alleged that Zionism was, or is, part of a Jewish plot to take control of the world.[97] One particular version of these allegations, "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" (subtitle "Protocols extracted from the secret archives of the central chancery of Zion") achieved global notability. The protocols are fictional minutes of an imaginary meeting by Jewish leaders of this plot. Analysis and proof of their fraudulent origin goes as far back as 1921.[98] A 1920 German version renamed them "The Zionist Protocols".[99] The protocols were extensively used as propaganda by the Nazis and remain widely distributed in the Arab world. They are referred to in the 1988 Hamas charter.[100]
There are examples of anti-Zionists using accusations, slanders, imagery and tactics previously associated with anti-semites. On October 21, 1973, then-Soviet ambassador to the United Nations Yakov Malik declared: "The Zionists have come forth with the theory of the Chosen People, an absurd ideology." Similarly, an exhibit about Zionism and Israel in the Museum of Religion and Atheism in Saint Petersburg designates the following as Soviet Zionist material: Jewish prayer shawls, tefillin and Passover Hagaddahs,[101] even though these are all religious items used by Jews for thousands of years.[102]
Objections to equating Anti-Zionism with Anti-Semitism

Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein, Irfan Khawaja, and Tariq Ali have suggested that the characterization of anti-Zionism as anti-Semitic is inaccurate, sometimes obscures legitimate criticism of Israel's policies and actions, and is sometimes a political ploy to stifle criticism of Israel.[103]