In the wake of the antisemitic attack at Bondi Beach, a leading academic has called for a more nuanced public understanding of Zionism, arguing that its multiple and often conflicting interpretations must be acknowledged to foster genuine dialogue and combat hatred.
The Bondi Attack and a Renewed Debate
The assault on 14 December, which targeted Jews celebrating Hanukkah, thrust issues of antisemitism and Jewish safety into the Australian spotlight. The New South Wales government responded with measures to curb hate speech and controversial new protest powers. This event has intensified discussions about the complex connections between Jewish communities, the state of Israel, Zionism, and anti-Zionist sentiment.
David Slucki, Director of the Australian Centre for Jewish Civilisation at Monash University, contends that the word "Zionism" is a deeply contested label. For many Jewish people, it represents safety, continuity, and belonging. For Palestinians and numerous others, it symbolises dispossession and ongoing domination. This fundamental divergence in meaning often causes people to talk past one another, with significant real-world consequences.
A Movement with a Spectrum of Meanings
Zionism originated in the late 19th century as a nationalist movement for Jewish self-determination. It was a response to rising modern antisemitism in Europe and the spread of nationalist movements across the continent. Early Zionists believed the establishment of a Jewish state was the only solution to the perpetual persecution Jews faced as a minority.
From its early days, the Zionist project encountered the existing majority Palestinian Arab population, which was concurrently developing its own national aspirations. Historically, Zionism itself was never monolithic. It encompassed a wide political spectrum, including socialist, liberal, religious, and militant revisionist strands, all debating the character of a future state and the status of Arab inhabitants.
The meaning of Zionism has evolved dramatically over the past 130 years. The Holocaust, the 1948 war that established Israel, and the Palestinian Nakba (Catastrophe) profoundly reshaped its practical implications. Since the 1967 war and the subsequent occupation of the West Bank and control over Gaza, alongside ongoing settlement expansion, the term has become even more polarised.
The Contemporary Landscape of Belief
Today, many Jews view Zionism as a modern manifestation of an ancient connection to the land of Israel, deeply embedded in Jewish history and liturgy. For them, Israel is seen as a vital safeguard against global antisemitism, and support for Jewish self-determination is central to their identity.
However, there is no consensus on what that self-determination should entail. Many Zionists advocate for a two-state solution with a democratic Palestine alongside Israel. Others are fiercely critical of the current Israeli government. At one extreme, ultranationalists, including some Israeli cabinet members, reject Palestinian statehood entirely and support annexation and unequal rights.
For Palestinians and critics, Zionism signifies displacement, inequality, and decades of suffering. Many describe it as a form of settler colonialism or a system of oppression. Some Jews also oppose Zionism, believing that Jewish statehood contradicts their understanding of Jewish ethics and diaspora life.
According to the Gen17 Australian Jewish community survey from 2017, 69% of Australian Jews identified as Zionist, 22% did not, and around 10% were unsure or declined to answer. Among non-Zionist Jews, there is a growing number of organisations that often find themselves at odds with more established community bodies.
The Path to Informed and Humanised Dialogue
Slucki emphasises that recognising the diversity of interpretations around Zionism is crucial for informed dialogue, empathy, and intellectual honesty. He suggests that understanding both Jewish intergenerational trauma and the Palestinian trauma born from decades of occupation could help de-weaponise the conversation and humanise all parties. Acknowledging the deep historical, religious, and cultural significance of the land to both peoples is also vital for a robust public discourse.
This approach requires drawing a clear distinction between debating the idea of Zionism and harassing or attacking those who identify with it. In Australian debate, "Zionist" is often a political descriptor, but it is sometimes used as a substitute for "Jew", which transforms political argument into antisemitic targeting.
It is possible, Slucki argues, to criticise Israel and believe Jewish statehood has harmed Palestinians, while still condemning the targeting of people for being Jewish or for their political beliefs as bigotry. Conversely, defending the right of Jews to hold Zionist views does not require endorsing every action of the Israeli government.
Ultimately, navigating this fraught terrain demands a commitment to nuance, a rejection of dehumanising language from all sides, and a focus on the humanity of those engaged in one of the most complex debates of our time.
