Zionism, Racism, Education and Politics at Oberlin College

To the Editors:

How are we to understand and address the wave of “Zionism = Racism” postings that have proliferated around campus over the past few weeks? Hoping that there might be some members of the community who are trying to think seriously about this issue, I’ve put my own thoughts together and suggest three possible ways to contemplate why this slogan was launched by its creators. (1) We can assume that this is a definitional problem, that those posting the signs have defined Zionism in a manner that is neither accurate nor a part of the common currency on the subject; (2) we can assume that the sign-posters are defining Zionism correctly and that this short equation actually represents a consistent (if strangely articulated) theory of politics; or (3) we can assume that deployment of such an equation has an anticipated and pernicious intent. Let’s look at each in turn.
(1) Definitions. The most straightforward definition of Zionism is the longing for a Jewish national homeland. If one were to write “Zionism = Jewish Nationalism” there would be little disagreement. Insofar as all nationalism is rooted (both narratively and in practice) in the demand for land, Zionism is nationalism, it is an expression of a Jewish desire for its own homeland. If, on the other hand, by writing “Zionism = Racism” one thinks that he/she is expressing a sense that the government of Ariel Sharon is repressive, destructive, and inimical to peace, I would likely agree with the analysis (others wouldn’t), but that’s not a discussion about Zionism, any more than suggesting that because George Bush has led this country and the world to the brink of the abyss, democracy must equal imperialism.
(2) Perhaps our leaflet-posters agree with the definition of Zionism as an expression of Jewish nationalism and they put it into an equation with racism because they oppose all nationalisms, and see all nationalistic tendencies as harmful. This could be a logical (if unrealistic) approach, but to be consistent they would also have to post signs around campus that said that the Kurdish, Palestinian, French, Chilean and all other demands for national homelands were equally destructive and should be opposed. (And, if such were really the motive of their campaign, then one would have to question why our attention was only being called to the Jewish demand for a homeland why no “Irish nationalism = racism” signs?)
(3) Finally, if those who have placed the posters around campus find that it is legitimate for the Kurds, or the Palestinians, or the French, or the Chileans or all other imagined communities that are the nations of the world to want and deserve a homeland, but not the Jews, then this is nothing more and nothing less than anti-Semitism (definition: hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic or racial group), and must be understood as such. And in that regard, it is as repugnant and undeserving of a place on our campus as any sentiment that seeks to threaten, isolate or intimidate any member of our community because of race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality or other identity. I ask the members of the Oberlin community to think very carefully about this when next observing the “Zionism = racism” stickers: it is one thing to oppose Israeli foreign policies (critiques which I might likely share); it is quite another to deny that the Jews, alone among the peoples of the world, have no right to a homeland. And that’s what it means when you equate the very concept of Zionism with the reprehensible practice of racism.

—Steven Volk
Professor of History