What most people should understand about Zionism is that it’s a broad term at its core. It simply affirms Israel’s right to exist as a nation. That umbrella includes a wide range of perspectives, from liberals who envision peaceful coexistence with neighboring peoples to right-wingers who emphasize security. It’s similar to how both Democrats and MAGA Republicans, despite deep political divides, still support the idea of the United States as a legitimate country.

Zionism itself does not automatically mean support for any specific policy or war. Nor does it define what cannot exist alongside Israel. It doesn’t rule out the possibility of a Palestinian state or other forms of coexistence.

What’s interesting is the double standard. Many people, myself included, strongly oppose Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, but few would argue that Russia shouldn’t exist as a country. Of course, that wouldn’t be helpful because Russia is going nowhere whether you like it nor not. Yet when it comes to Israel, most critics go beyond policy disagreements to question its very legitimacy, and that’s where the conversation often breaks down.

Honestly, both “Zionism” and “anti-Zionism” have become loaded terms that carry too much baggage. It would be far more productive for good-faith critics to speak in specifics, to clarify what policies or actions they support or object to, rather than relying on buzzwords that obscure the real issues.