Israel and its ideology of Zionism are facing a new development in the propaganda campaign being waged against them. Enemies and opponents have successfully weaponized the rhetoric, transforming terminology into definitions that serve only their purpose. This mobilization of words has been aggressive, dominating and hermetic.
It has made discussions and debates nigh impossible, as it has created a new form of the ipso facto element. Expressions and designations can only be defined according to their standards. When they describe a phenomenon, it can only be what they say it is. It is solely the direct consequence of Zionism and their version of history.
Among examples is the insistence that in the Gaza Strip these past two-and-a-half years, and now in Lebanon, Israel is performing “genocide” against Palestinian Arabs.
Other phrases include “Zionism is a reactionary, racist ideology,” marked by “Jewish supremacy.” Israel is an “apartheid regime” and a “Jewish-exclusionary state.” It works in reverse as well. Arabs are not engaged in terror but resistance; as such, their violence is a priori justified.
One of the most effective word weapons is the charge that Zionism is engaged in “settler-colonialism.” Combined with all its championing by Jews—from far-left journalist Peter Beinart to neo-Bundists, woke Marxists to Neturei Karta and the “As a Jew” class—the charge takes advantage of the reverse-telescoping maneuver.
In the medical field, impaired vision disability can benefit from optical treatment with reversed telescope lenses, which can help narrow the field of view. Reversed telescope vision reduces the image size by 50%, which results in the doubling of the field of view diameter within the restricted visual field.
In the realm of political ideology, the same procedure grants the propagandist the advantage by allowing his argument to ignore elements and facts that are unhelpful to his line of attack, which, if included in the pictured presentation, would undermine his argument.
In the case of accusing Zionism of engaging in “settler-colonialism,” the maneuver is extremely effective since Zionism is, in truth, just the opposite of what it is claimed to be. Moreover, enlarging the field of vision allows the truth to become apparent.
In the first instance, the Arab presence in what they call “Palestine” is the direct result of a foreign Islamist settler-colonialism—one done through military invasion and conquest, social and religious suppression, and political subjugation. As for Jews, they were indigenous to the territory, and despite losing sovereign independence, nevertheless maintained a presence, a cultural/religious identification and a geographical consciousness for more than 18 centuries, always seeking to return to their homeland.
Secondly, the so-called “colonization” was done through purchasing back the land, mainly in locations where the Arab owners did not live. Zionists consistently sought accommodations to resolve territorial issues, including the yielding of land through either partitions or exchanges.
Thirdly, the State of Israel (Zionism’s result) assures fulfillment of all democratic rights and civil liberties for the non-Jewish population. It upholds personal and community freedoms unlike any other country in the Muslim and Arab-dominated Middle East. There is no comparison.
Fourthly, whereas Zionists sought conflict resolution through peaceful means, from the start in April 1920 until today, the Arab practice has been terror and violence, boycott and aggression, rejection and a total lack of commitment to agreements. Their diplomacy has been fallacious in intention and misleading in methodology.
Lastly, in spite of the Arab record of murder, pillaging and destruction during the Mandate period, and now, during statehood, the Arab populace has benefited economically, educationally, health-wise and in every other facet of their civilian existence.
Zionism did not seek the elimination of the Arab settler. It did not wish to deprive them of rights, but rather, to grant them those rights that the previous imperialist rulers had prevented them from achieving.
Furthermore, Zionism was and continues to be a movement of liberation that encompasses not only Jews, but all the other minorities living in Israel. Jews were not solely “European” (actually arriving in Europe due mostly to the first and second centuries dispersals by the Romans and subsequent persecutions), but Middle Eastern, Asian and North African.
With the recent celebrations of Israel’s 78th day of independence, Jews need to remember and remind enemies and opponents of these fundamental truths, among others.
Jews are not “settlers,” but “returnees to Zion.” Jews are not engaged in colonialism, but in a process of repatriation to their historic national homeland.
The Land of Israel has always been an intrinsic element of the Jewish identity—in Europe, Asia and on four other continents. It is at the heart of religious practices, cultural customs, songs and language from birth to death, wherever Jews lived or were forced to flee from and move to.
And in the 20th century and beyond, Jews have finally come home.
