The 14 December Bondi Beach attack targeting Jews at a Hanukah celebration has brought the issue of antisemitism into sharp national focus. In response, the New South Wales government announced measures to further curb hate speech and symbols, and, more controversially, new protest powers. This event and the government’s response have once again raised questions about the relationship between Jews, Israel, Zionism and anti-Zionism.
Zionism is a Jewish national movement that sought to create a Jewish state, then to secure and sustain it. But “Zionism” is also a contested label: for many Jews it signifies safety, continuity and belonging; for Palestinians – and for many others – it denotes dispossession and ongoing domination. It’s clear that for different people, the word Zionism means very different things, which leads to people talking past one another – with real-world consequences.
Originating in the late 19th century as a movement for Jewish national self-determination, Zionism was founded in response to the increase of a modern form of Jew-hatred grounded in pseudo-science and conspiracy theories, and the rise of European national movements seeking their independence. Early Zionists argued that the only solution for the precarious status of Jews as a perennially persecuted minority in Europe was through the establishment of a Jewish state.
From the beginning of mass Jewish migration from Europe to Ottoman and Mandate Palestine, the Zionist project collided with the fact of a majority Palestinian Arab population, engaged in building its own national movement. Zionism comprised a spectrum of political positions, including socialist, liberal, religious and militaristic and revisionist strands. Within these movements, there were internal arguments about the nature of the future state and the place of Arabs and Palestinians within it.
In the nearly 130 years since the founding of the Zionist movement, the meaning of the term has continually evolved. The Holocaust, the 1948 war that accompanied Israel’s establishment, and the mass displacement of Palestinians (known by Palestinians as the Nakba, or the Catastrophe) reshaped what “Zionism” meant in practice. Since 1967 Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and its control over Gaza, alongside ongoing settlement expansion in the Palestinian territories, have made the term even more contested.
Today many Jews see Zionism as a modern continuation of the centuries-old yearning for connection with the land of Israel, which is deeply rooted in Jewish history and liturgy. A commonly held view is that the state of Israel is necessary to protect Jews around the world from the possibility of ongoing persecution. This connection to Israel and support for Jewish self-determination are central to Zionist Jews’ sense of what it means to be Jewish.
There is no consensus though on what that self-determination ought to look like, and Zionism has always encompassed a spectrum of meanings. Many Zionists advocate for a democratic Jewish state to sit alongside a democratic Palestinian state. Many are deeply critical of, even hostile to, the current Israeli government. At the extreme end of the spectrum are ultranationalists – including members of the Israeli cabinet – who reject Palestinian statehood and who advocate for annexation of the Palestinian territories and to entrench permanent unequal rights between Jews and Palestinians.
For Palestinians and critics of Zionism the term signals displacement, inequality and the ongoing suffering of Palestinians since the establishment of the Israeli state. To them, the cost of Jewish statehood has been too great and the impact on Palestinians too devastating. Many describe it as settler colonialism; many as a system of oppression and unequal rights.
For Jews who oppose Zionism, the role of statehood runs counter to their self-understanding of what it means to be Jewish.
Many people arrive at their views from sincere commitments, whether to Jewish safety and continuity or to Palestinian freedom and equality. That does not mean all political programs are equally defensible, especially those that deny other peoples their basic rights. But it does highlight the problem with language that treats “Zionists” as collectively violent or subhuman, whether through labelling all Zionists as terrorists and genocidal maniacs, or claims that Australian Jews are legitimate targets because of their attachment to Israel. Similarly, we ought not dismiss all pro-Palestinian protesters as antisemites or Jew-haters.
Findings from the Gen17 Australian Jewish community survey – conducted in 2017 to be replicated in 2026 as the Gen26 survey – found that 69% of Australian Jews identified as Zionist, 22% did not and about 10% didn’t know or declined to answer. Among those who do not identify as Zionist, there are a growing number of Jewish bodies opposing Zionism and who are in tension with the more established Jewish community bodies.
Because Zionism carries multiple and often conflicting interpretations, recognising this diversity is essential to fostering informed dialogue, empathy and intellectual honesty. Understanding Jewish intergenerational trauma and the trauma Palestinians carry from decades of occupation would make the conversation harder to weaponise and easier to humanise. And recognising the historical, religious and cultural significance of the land to both Jews and Palestinians will help us to have a more robust public conversation.
Recognising this diversity of thought and the humanity of those who hold those beliefs, we ought to draw a clear distinction between debating the merits of Zionism as an idea and harassing, doxxing or physically attacking those who identify as Zionist. In Australian public debate, “Zionist” is often used as a political descriptor. But it is also sometimes used as a stand‑in for “Jew”, which is where political argument turns into antisemitic targeting.
It is possible for critics of Israel to argue that Jewish statehood has caused profound harm to Palestinians, while still recognising that targeting people because they are Jewish, or because of their political or cultural attachments, crosses a line from legitimate political disagreement into bigotry. The reverse is also true: defending the right of Jews to hold Zionist beliefs does not require endorsing every action or government of the Israeli state.
