Opinion: Attempts to redefine Zionism should be firmly rejected

David Ben Gurion reads Israel's Declaration of Independence on May 14, 1948, in Tel Aviv. Photo by Zoltan Kluger/GPO via Getty Images

Article content

Carleton University Prof. Mira Sucharov’s recent Globe and Mail op-ed — Anti-Zionism And Antisemitism Should Not Be Conflated — suggests that what is most urgently needed is not another debate over the definition of Zionism, but a history lesson. Yet it is Sucharov herself who appears most in need of one.

Article content

She approaches the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through a highly selective account of its history, where Palestinian suffering is presented as the inevitable consequence of the creation of a Jewish state in parts of the Jewish people’s ancient homeland.

Article content

Article content

Article content

Arab rejection of Jewish self-determination, wars against Israel and repeated efforts to eliminate it are all omitted in the history told by Sucharov. She fails to mention that in 1947, when the United Nations proposed the creation of a Jewish and Arab state in Mandatory Palestine, Jewish leaders accepted the proposal while Arab leaders rejected it.

Article content

Article content

Following Israel’s declaration of independence in May 1948, neighbouring Arab armies started a war with the intention of destroying the fledgling country. The ensuing conflict resulted in the displacement of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians, a tragedy that ultimately became central to Palestinian national identity.

Article content

Sucharov does mention that Israel has served as a refuge for Jews, but gives too little attention to the historical reasons that it became so critical. The idea of creating a Jewish state preceded the Nazi genocide, but the murder of six-million European Jews made it urgent.

Article content

For Holocaust survivors and Jews elsewhere, Israel represented more than an abstract political ideology. It offered a measure of collective security after the catastrophic global failure to protect Jews. To reduce Zionism principally to an instrument of Palestinian dispossession is a troubling form of post-Holocaust historical revisionism, one that marginalizes the circumstances that made Jewish sovereignty a matter of survival.

Article content

Article content

Nor does Sucharov’s selective treatment end in 1948. Between that year and 1967, Jordan controlled the West Bank while Egypt administered Gaza. Yet neither established an independent Palestinian state in the territories under its control, nor was the creation of such a state within those territories the central demand of the Arab governments of the period.

Article content

Article content

This is hardly an insignificant omission from an account that presents Zionism as the principal obstacle to Palestinian self-determination. Subsequent wars, rejected diplomatic opportunities and continued refusal to accept Israel’s right to exist are indispensable elements of the historical record.

Article content

That brings us to Oct. 7, 2023. Hamas terrorists murdered approximately 1,200 people and abducted 251 hostages in an attack that deliberately targeted civilians. Sucharov refers to the Hamas “attacks,” but her discussion of the subsequent rise in global antisemitism focuses instead on Israel’s military response in Gaza.

Article content

The war has had devastating consequences for Israelis and Palestinians alike. Yet an account that examines Israel’s response without addressing Hamas’s objectives and responsibility for the original attack leaves a crucial part of the story untold.