logo
America's Anti-Jewish Assassins Are Making the Case for Zionism

America's Anti-Jewish Assassins Are Making the Case for Zionism

Yahoo08-06-2025
The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here.
The founding father of Zionism, the modern movement to create a Jewish state, had a Christmas tree. In 1895, Theodor Herzl, the Jewish journalist who would later convene the world's first Zionist Congress, was busy lighting the holiday ornament with his family when the chief rabbi of Vienna dropped in for a visit. The cleric was not amused—but the episode helps explain what Zionism is, why it came to be, and why it still finds adherents.
Far from seeking to flee non-Jewish society, Herzl—like many European Jews of his era—ardently hoped to be accepted by it. He did not circumcise his son, and initially proposed that Jews evade anti-Semitism by converting en masse to Roman Catholicism. Only after such ill omens as the rise of Karl Lueger, the Vienna mayor who would serve as inspiration to Adolf Hitler, did Herzl reluctantly conclude that Jews would never be accepted in gentile society and pivot to pursuing Jewish statehood.
Moving to a then-backwater in the Middle East was the last thing that Herzl wanted to do. It was also the last thing most Jews of his time wanted to do. Like Herzl, they simply sought to live in peace in the places they'd called home for centuries. And some, like Herzl, slowly realized that this was not going to be possible. As the historian Walter Russell Mead has put it, 'Zionism was not the triumphant battle cry of a victorious ethnic group,' but rather 'a weird, crazy, desperate stab at survival' made by those who foresaw their impending doom and despaired of other options. Seen in this context, Herzl's influential manifesto Der Judenstaat ('The Jewish State') was the 19th-century equivalent of Get Out for European Jews: a warning that well-intentioned liberalism would not save them, and that they needed to escape while they still could.
Ever since, much of the world has worked to prove Herzl right.
This past Sunday in Colorado, a man infiltrated a solidarity event for Israeli hostages in Gaza and began setting the Jews there on fire. The attack left 15 wounded, including an 88-year-old Holocaust survivor. The Boulder assault occurred just weeks after the execution of a young couple outside the Capital Jewish Museum in Washington, D.C., where a leftist extremist allegedly emptied his clip into one of the victims as she tried to crawl away. That shooting followed the attempted assassination of Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro on the second night of Passover.
[Read: The deadly virus of anti-Semitic terrorism]
The firebomber in Colorado was captured on video shouting 'end Zionists' during his rampage. The murderer in Washington produced a keffiyeh and reportedly declared, 'I did it for Gaza.' Shapiro's would-be killer told a 911 operator that he targeted the Jewish governor 'for what he wants to do to the Palestinian people.'
Although these assailants all attacked American Jews, they clearly perceived themselves as Zionism's avengers. In reality, however, they have joined a long line of Zionism's inadvertent advocates. As in Herzl's time, the perpetrators of anti-Jewish acts do more than nearly anyone else to turn Jews who were once indifferent or even hostile to Israel's fate into reluctant appreciators of its necessity.
Consider the Holocaust, the greatest anti-Jewish atrocity in modern memory. The Third Reich and its many collaborators exterminated two-thirds of Europe's Jews. At the same time, the enemies of the Nazis—including the United States and Canada—refused to let most desperate Jewish refugees into their countries. This inevitably funneled many people toward their destination of last resort: mandatory Palestine. The creation of Israel was the consequence less of Jewish choices than of all other Jewish choices being foreclosed by non-Jewish powers.
In 1948, Israel declared independence and fought off the attempt of five invading Arab armies to strangle it in the cradle. Some 800,000 Palestinians fled or were expelled from their homeland. Wide swaths of the world promptly took out their displeasure at this outcome on the Jewish populations nearest at hand. In the years following Israel's founding, nearly 1 million Jews left their ancestral homes in the Arab and Muslim world. Many fled abuse in countries such as Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, Syria, and Tunisia, where Jews were imprisoned, tortured, murdered, and stripped of their possessions, despite having lived in these places for millennia. At the time, few of these people were Zionists. They loved their home countries, which refused to love them back, and faced persecution when they arrived in Israel. Today, this Mizrahi community and its descendants comprise about half of Israel's population and form the backbone of Benjamin Netanyahu's right-wing base.
The Soviet Union, despite presenting itself as the vanguard of universal brotherhood, also turned on its Jews. The Communist police state cast the community as subversive, institutionally discriminated against its members in higher education and the professions, and labeled countless Jews who had no interest in Israel as 'Zionists.' The state executed secular Jewish artists and intellectuals under false charges, repressed observance of the Jewish faith, and threw those who protested into Gulags. Eventually, after decades of international pressure, nearly 2 million Jews were allowed to leave. More than half moved to Israel, where they would become one of Israel's most reliably conservative constituencies.
Simply put, Israel exists as it does today because of the repeated choices made by societies to reject their Jews. Had these societies made different choices, Jews would still live in them, and Israel likely would not exist—certainly not in its present form. Instead, Israel is a garrison state composed precisely of those Jews with the most reason to distrust the outside world and its appeals to international ideals, knowing that these did precisely nothing to help them when they needed it most. In this manner, decade after decade, anti-Semitism has created more Zionism. Put another way, the unwitting agents of Zionism throughout history have been those unwilling to tolerate Jews in their own countries.
[Bruce Hoffman: The Boulder attack didn't come out of nowhere]
Given this dynamic, a rational anti-Zionist movement would devote itself to making Jews feel welcome in every facet of life outside of Israel, ruthlessly rooting out any inkling of anti-Semitism in order to convince Jews that they have nothing to fear and certainly no need for a separate state. Such an anti-Zionist movement would overcome Zionism by making it obsolete. But that is not the anti-Zionist movement that currently exists. Instead, Israel's opposition around the globe—whether groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah or their international apologists and imitators—often seems determined to persuade those Jews who chose differently than Herzl did that he was right all along.
Attacks such as those in Colorado, Washington, and Pennsylvania, not to mention the white-supremacist massacre at Pittsburgh's Tree of Life synagogue in 2018, have raised the costs of being Jewish in America. Synagogues, schools, and other Jewish institutions collectively pay millions of dollars to secure their premises, resulting in communities that are less open to the outside and attendees being forever reminded that they are not safe even in their places of worship. And now American Jews thinking of attending communal events must stop to consider whether would-be attackers will associate them with Israel and target them for death.
America, at least, was not always this way. The country has long stood as the great counterexample to the Zionist project—proof that Jews could not just survive but thrive as equals in a pluralistic liberal democracy, without need for their own army or state. After Barbra Steinmetz, the 88-year-old Holocaust survivor in Boulder, was attacked, she had a message for the country. 'We're Americans,' she told NBC News. 'We are better than this.' That is what most American Jews and their allies believe, and the justification for that belief was evident in Colorado this week, where Jared Polis, the state's popular Jewish governor, forthrightly condemned the attack. But if the perpetrators and the cheerleaders of the incipient American intifada have their way, that spirit will be stifled.
Such a victory, however, would be self-defeating. According to video captured at the scene, the Boulder attacker accidentally set himself on fire in the middle of his assault. It would be hard to script a better metaphor for the way such violence sabotages the cause it purports to advance. If the anti-Zionist assassins succeed in making Jewish life in the United States less livable, they will not have helped a single Palestinian, but they will have made their opponents' case for them. They will have proved the promise of America wrong, and the darkest premonitions of Zionism right.
Article originally published at The Atlantic
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Israel's left and right are both making Jewish state a global pariah
Israel's left and right are both making Jewish state a global pariah

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

Israel's left and right are both making Jewish state a global pariah

Israel's international standing is being battered from both ends of its political spectrum. The far Right undermines it with reckless belligerence; the far Left corrodes it with moral preening. It's a story that could be written even before it unfolds. On Tisha B'Av, the fast day marking the destruction of the two ancient Temples in Jerusalem, National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir will go up to the Temple Mount. Once there, he will make some provocative statement that will be beamed worldwide. Shortly afterward, the Prime Minister's Office will issue a statement walking it back. On Sunday, that script — predictably — played itself out yet again. Ben-Gvir ascended the Temple Mount, led prayers there — in violation of the status quo that forbids public Jewish prayer — and said the following: 'I say this precisely from here - from the Temple Mount, where we've proven sovereignty is possible - that a clear message must be sent: The entire Gaza Strip must be conquered, sovereignty declared, every Hamas member taken down, and voluntary emigration promoted. Only then will we return the hostages and win the war.' The furious reaction from Jordan and Saudi Arabia quickly followed. As did this clarification from the Prime Minister's Office: 'Israel's policy of preserving the status quo on the Temple Mount has not changed, nor will it change.' Another predictable part of the ritual followed as well: people asking themselves, or their friends, why Ben-Gvir doesn't just keep quiet already, why Netanyahu doesn't muzzle him, and whether they both don't realize the damage these comments cause to Israel's standing internationally. Words that harm Israel's image Ben-Gvir is not the only far-right minister whose careless words irreparably harm Israel's image. Just last week, Heritage Minister Amichay Eliyahu, responding to an interviewer who noted Israel was racing toward a hostage deal, said that Israel was instead racing ahead 'for Gaza to be wiped out.' He added that all of Gaza will be Jewish, and that — unlike Israel's prior settlements in Gush Katif — 'there will not be settlements inside cantons, closed up behind a fence.' At a time when Israel is facing a diplomatic backlash of the kind it has rarely experienced — when it is being accused of starving the Gazan population, committing ethnic cleansing and even genocide — statements like these are seized upon by the country's harshest critics to validate their claims. The harm is real and lasting. In the torrent of commentary last week from politicians and pundits trying to understand and explain the West's growing hostility toward Israel — in the avalanche of countries announcing plans to recognize a Palestinian state and essentially reward Hamas — many pointed directly to statements like these. Not just isolated comments by Ben-Gvir or Eliyahu, but a steady stream of similar remarks over recent months from figures like Bezalel Smotrich, Orit Struck, and others. So much so that some diplomatic officials are urging Netanyahu to freeze all Gaza-related media appearances by government ministers — whether to international or domestic outlets — because even a seemingly minor interview with an obscure local radio station can and will be translated, circulated, and weaponized abroad. But here's the rub: it's not only the extreme Right that's damaging Israel's standing. Just look at the far Left. The international media is now running wild with an interview that author David Grossman gave to an Italian daily in which he described Israel's actions in Gaza as genocide. In a Friday interview with La Repubblica, Grossman said he was leveling the genocide accusation with 'intense pain and a broken heart.' 'For many years I refused to use this word,' he said. 'But now, after the images I've seen, what I've read, and what I've heard from people who were there, I can't help but use it.' Do you think Eliyahu's rhetoric was damaging? It pales in comparison to Grossman accusing Israel of genocide. As a celebrated author who lost his son in Lebanon, Grossman's words carry tremendous moral weight abroad. If he says Israel is committing genocide, then who are La Repubblica's readers — or anyone else — to argue? Grossman's defenders will say that it's the statements from Eliyahu, Ben-Gvir, and Smotrich that are isolating Israel internationally. But so are Grossman's. He may believe that by saying what he did, he's presenting the moral, compassionate face of Israel. But many abroad will simply take his words and use them — deliberately and gleefully — to portray Israel as an irredeemable villain, as a perpetrator of genocide. And Grossman is far from alone. Worried that Ben-Gvir is turning Israel into a pariah state? Consider this editorial last week by Yuli Novak, head of B'Tselem, published in the ever-hostile Guardian. The headline: 'I lead a top Israeli human rights group. Our country is committing genocide.' That headline is an echo of a recent New York Times op-ed written by an Israeli academic who has taught in the US since 1989 — Omer Bartov — titled: 'I am a genocide scholar. I know it when I see it.' His conclusion: Israel is committing genocide. All this is to say nothing of the Ehud Olmerts and Moshe Ya'alons -- the former accusing Israel of war crimes, the latter of ethnic cleansing. Their harsh words are picked up with enthusiasm by the international press, often stripped of context. Context, like Ya'alon's personal grudge as a frustrated former defense minister pushed out by Netanyahu, or Olmert's bitterness as a disgraced former prime minister who served 16 months in prison. In May, Olmert wrote in Haaretz: 'What we are doing in Gaza now is a war of devastation: indiscriminate, limitless, cruel and criminal killing of civilians. We're not doing this due to loss of control in any specific sector, not due to some disproportionate outburst by some soldiers in some unit. Rather, it's the result of government policy — knowingly, evilly, maliciously, irresponsibly dictated. Yes, Israel is committing war crimes.' That op-ed has been cited and quoted repeatedly since its publication, used by critics as authoritative evidence to support the most vile charges being leveled against the Jewish state. So what's the point? The point is simple: Israel's international standing is being battered from both ends of its political spectrum. The far Right undermines it with reckless belligerence; the far Left corrodes it with sanctimonious moral preening. One declares that Gaza should be wiped out, the other accuses Israel of genocide. One shouts, the other indicts. Both hands of ammunition to those eager to delegitimize the country. Both feed the same narrative: that Israel is evil. And left to pay the price and bear the consequences for these over-the-top and irresponsible remarks are the millions of Israelis in the middle — the vast majority — who are being defined in the eyes of the world by the rhetoric and portrayals of those on the country's extremes. Solve the daily Crossword

Agent's alleged attempt to smuggle wife on Trump's Scotland trip being probed in latest Secret Service fiasco
Agent's alleged attempt to smuggle wife on Trump's Scotland trip being probed in latest Secret Service fiasco

Fox News

timean hour ago

  • Fox News

Agent's alleged attempt to smuggle wife on Trump's Scotland trip being probed in latest Secret Service fiasco

President Donald Trump dished on the "strange story" stemming from reports that a Secret Service agent attempted to smuggle his wife onto a Secret Service cargo plane accompanying the president on his trip to Scotland, as the Secret Service kicks off an investigation into the incident. Trump told reporters that he had just heard about the alleged incident, which he labeled a "weird deal" and said that the agency was handling the matter. "I don't know, that's a strange one. I just heard that two minutes ago. I think Sean's taking care of it … Is that a serious story?" Trump told reporters on Air Force One Tuesday, appearing to reference Sean Curran, Secret Service director. "I don't want to get involved, it's a strange story," Trump said. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Fox News Digital on whether Trump had been briefed on the matter or on the investigation. Real Clear Politics first reported that a Secret Service agent attempted to smuggle his wife aboard a Secret Service cargo aircraft during Trump's travels for his Scotland trip. When asked about the report, the Secret Service told Fox News Digital a personnel investigation is underway. "The U.S. Secret Service is conducting a personnel investigation after an employee attempted to invite his spouse - a member of the United States Air Force - aboard a mission support flight," a Secret Service spokesperson said in a Tuesday statement to Fox News Digital. "The aircraft, operated by the U.S. Air Force, was being used by the Secret Service to transport personnel and equipment," the spokesperson said. "Prior to the overseas departure, the employee was advised by supervisors that such action was prohibited, and the spouse was subsequently prevented from taking the flight. No Secret Service protectees were aboard and there was no impact to our overseas protective operations." The Secret Service has come under scrutiny following the aftermath of the July 2024 assassination attempt against Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania. In that incident, 20-year-old gunman Thomas Matthew Crooks fired eight bullets at Trump from a rooftop during a campaign rally. One bullet grazed Trump's ear, and the gunman killed Corey Comperatore, a 50-year-old firefighter, father and husband attending the rally. Additionally, another man was apprehended and charged months later with attempting to assassinate Trump at his Trump International Golf Club in West Palm Beach, Florida. Both incidents are under investigation, and a bipartisan House task force that investigated the Pennsylvania attack determined the episode was "preventable," and that various mistakes were not an isolated incident. Since these episodes, the Secret Service has implemented a host of changes to its agency to beef up its security practices. Specific steps taken include expanding the use of drones for surveillance purposes, and overhauling its radio communications networks and their interoperability with Secret Service personnel, and state and local law enforcement officers.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store