The same way I don’t think we should capitulate to framing “cracker” as a slur, or to framing “black lives matter” as a racist thing to say, I don’t think we should capitulate to framing things like “from the river to the sea” or “zionist” as antisemitic.
But, as a thought experiment, let’s indulge in this doublespeak trash. What is a good alternative? So far I’ve got:
- Israeli colonizers
- Jewish supremacists
- genocidal sacks of shit
- Israeli apartheidists
- Isreal expansionists
- Israeli warmongerers
- people in favor of the genocide and apartheid committed by Israel (in full, every time you need to say zionist)
- modern day nazis
- zionazis (technically not zionist!)
So all of this liberal crybaby nomenclature trash aside, I actually do think “zionist” is in itself a fairly useless term for the Israeli apartheid question (as Norman Finkelstein and Judith Butler do too). While one faction of zionism pursued the nakba and massacres from fairly early on, and while this faction has been quite successful, there are other notions of zionism which do not entail murdering children or colonizing a country. When Netanyahu and Chomsky can both legitimately refer to themselves as zionists, I think it’s clear that zionism is too broad a term to be useful in the current ongoing genocide and the ethnic cleansing that has been going on for the better part of a century.
