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, Ive
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.
Lets 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 wouldnt), but thats 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 thats what
it means when you equate the very concept of Zionism with the reprehensible practice of racism.
Steven Volk
Professor of History
|