The Unraveling of Liberal Zionism

“I’m an old-school Liberal Zionist, which means I support Israel and I hate myself for it.” — an anonymous acquaintance.

At its best, Liberal Zionism aspires to reconcile Jewish and Palestinian national ambitions, insisting that these aspirations are not mutually exclusive. At its worst, it is a way to virtue-signal: “I’m not that kind of Zionist.” Yes, Liberal Zionists support Israel, but they do so by wagging their finger at the Jewish state, tut-tutting its every move, and trying to “save it from itself.” 

Liberal Zionism is thus a paradox: a stance of support wrapped in apology, as though Zionism were a sin requiring indulgence. It seeks to stand with Israel while undermining and delegitimizing it at every turn. It insists that “a Jewish state” isn’t the problem — just this Jewish state.

Since Oct. 7, a wave of think pieces have declared the “crisis” of Liberal Zionism, arguing that Liberalism and Zionism have become incompatible, or perhaps that they always were. Writing in New York Magazine, Ayelet Waldman described an “inherent contradiction and willful blindness” in Liberal Zionism, calling it an ideology that “lost much of its political influence long ago” and, for her, was finally shattered by Oct. 7 and the ensuing war in Gaza.

Waldman is far from alone. Many people, watching Israel’s intense campaign against Hamas in the wake of Oct. 7, have come to associate Israel not with liberalism but with violence.

But the real problem isn’t a conflict between Liberalism and Zionism. After all, there is nothing illiberal about a nation defending itself from a terrorist invasion or fighting back after civilians are massacred. The deeper issue is that Liberal Zionism has largely accepted the core premises of anti-Zionism — namely that Israel is an illegitimate aggressor, or even that it is guilty of genocide. A Zionism which has absorbed these beliefs is unsustainable.   

The deeper issue is that Liberal Zionism has largely accepted the core premises of anti-Zionism — namely that Israel is an illegitimate aggressor, or even that it is guilty of genocide. A Zionism which has absorbed these beliefs is unsustainable.

Joe Biden’s presidency provides a painful case in point. More than any other president, Biden embodied this shamefaced Liberal Zionism: He supported Israel but seemed embarrassed to do so. He stood by Israel during its darkest hour but simultaneously undermined its leaders, rewarded its enemies, and made it sound as though even he doubted the justice of the war he was bankrolling.

The result was incoherence. Zionists found his support lukewarm and conditional, while anti-Zionists saw him as complicit in war crimes.

But incoherence is only part of the story. More damaging was the ineffectiveness, now laid bare. Trump, for all his many and serious flaws, did more before officially starting his term to secure a hostage deal than Biden could in 15 months. Outgoing Secretary of State Antony Blinken, in an exit interview with The New York Times, admitted why: Biden’s policy of pressuring Israel emboldened Hamas to dig in its heels.

Of course, Biden wasn’t the only obstacle. Ben Gvir and Smotrich played their part to keep the hostages in darkness, as they have now admitted. But the takeaway is undeniable: Liberal Zionism failed to end the war and bring the hostages home. By contrast, unapologetic Zionism is already working to improve life for Israelis and Palestinians alike.

Unapologetic Zionism need not be uncritical Zionism. Nor does it mean — in the context of the presidency — giving Israel a free pass. We have already seen that Trump is better able to apply pressure and extract compromise from Netanyahu than his predecessor. That said, when Israel is being attacked by jihadist militias on all sides, unapologetic Zionists will not seek to comfort or coddle those in America who want nothing more than to see those militias win and Zionists lose. Rather, they will make the case, loudly and without quibbling, for why America, and Americans, ought to stand by Israel.

I pray this latest deal holds. Nothing matters more than the safe return of the hostages and the beginning of Palestinian rebuilding after such devastating loss.

We’ve seen too much heartache, fear, and bloodshed. Both sides of the border deserve peace and liberty. To say so is an affirmation of my Zionism, not an apology for it.

Matthew Schultz is a Jewish Journal columnist and rabbinical student at Hebrew College. He is the author of the essay collection “What Came Before” (Tupelo, 2020) and lives in Boston and Jerusalem.