British Green Party's Anti-Zionism Echoes Ancient Anti-Jewish Sentiment

A medieval Jewish commentator, Rashi, foresaw a millennium ago that modern Israel would face political distress, citing a fourth-century midrash that offered a theological defense for Jewish presence in the land. The midrash suggested that if questioned about occupying the land, Jews could claim it was entrusted to them by God, shifting the debate to the divine. However, contemporary nations are unimpressed by such interpretations, a sentiment likely shared by their predecessors.

The article draws a parallel between this historical context and the recent decision by the British Green Party to label Zionism as racism and advocate for a single democratic state across all of historic Palestine. This stance, reached after extensive deliberation, signifies a rejection of any Hebrew sovereignty between the Jordan River and the sea. The author notes that the party's position is not limited to the West Bank but encompasses all Israeli presence.

Commentators have highlighted the British Green Party's declaration as the first in the West to officially define Zionism as racism, suggesting that other parties may follow suit. While acknowledging potential failures in Israeli government public relations, the article posits that the animosity towards Jews is a chronic, age-old problem predating Theodor Herzl and not solely due to a lack of effective spokespeople. Historically, even when Israel adhered to its 1949 borders, it faced hostility, and European antisemitism existed long before the Zionist movement.

A 1969 government inquiry into improving Israel's image abroad cautioned against excessive expectations from public relations efforts, especially if maintaining control over territories captured in the Six-Day War was deemed existentially necessary. This recommendation remains relevant, as no one suggests relinquishing Tel Aviv to appease the Green Party. The inquiry also proposed accepting the inherent difficulty of public relations abroad as long as territorial control is considered vital.

The article concludes that while a robust public relations strategy could mitigate global hostility, the practical response to rising antisemitism is to maintain strength. It quotes satirist Ephraim Kishon, who, after the Six-Day War, suggested it is better to be hated for winning than to gain sympathy after losing. The piece implies that in historical instances of mass murder, like Treblinka and Auschwitz, the focus was not on self-explanation but on survival.