Zionism & Antisemitism: How a Word Became Hate Speech

Demonstrators at protests against Israeli President Isaac Herzog’s visit to Australia have directed anger not only at Israeli policies but at “Zionists” themselves, with the term increasingly used as an insult rather than a descriptor of belief. The trend has sparked concern over the potential for the term to become a proxy for antisemitism.

The Evolution of “Zionist” as a Pejorative

Victor Klemperer, a Jewish academic who survived Nazi Germany, warned that words can normalize contempt through gradual accumulation. This process, he argued, wasn’t about overt slogans but about the insidious effect of seemingly respectable language. “Zionist” has, over the past two years, entered this territory, according to an opinion piece published by The Age.

Following the Bondi attack, the author was involved in a public campaign for a federal royal commission into antisemitism. A message received from a long-time acquaintance questioned whether the author had been paid by Israel for their advocacy. The acquaintance then stated, “Zionists have always been morally bankrupt with a superiority complex.”

When asked if he believed Israel should continue to exist, and as a Jewish state with equal rights for all citizens, the acquaintance affirmed both points. By standard definition, he qualified as a Zionist, yet either did not understand the term or deliberately repurposed it, the author writes.

Understanding Zionism

Zionism is the belief that the Jewish people have the right to self-determination in their ancestral homeland, and in practice, the idea that Israel should exist as a Jewish state. It does not dictate borders, military policy, or require allegiance to any specific government. It does not exclude any race or religion from Israeli citizenship, nor does it preclude criticism of Israel or opposition to a two-state solution. Criticism of Israel comparable to that leveled against any other country is not considered antisemitic.

The author argues that the term “Zionist” is increasingly deployed as an insult, used to assign blame without definition. Accusations leveled against “Zionists” often involve claims of supremacy or inherent evil.

The author contends that using “Zionist” as a pejorative allows hostility to be expressed while maintaining plausible deniability, particularly as openly targeting Jews is no longer socially acceptable. This linguistic shift, they argue, risks normalizing prejudice and could have damaging consequences.

A federal royal commission into antisemitism, if established, must address this linguistic manipulation and determine whether “Zionist” has become a stand-in for “Jew,” legitimizing hostility under the guise of political critique. Existing legal frameworks are ill-equipped to address this type of corrosive rhetoric.

Danny Berkovic is a Sydney businessman and an organiser of the bondiresponse.com petition, which pushed the Albanese government to announce a royal commission into antisemitism.