Let’s look at an example of this. It seems that some people still deliberately conflate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism. This confusion isn’t neutral – it shapes how discussions are framed, who gets silenced, and what political paths remain possible.
Let’s be clear:
- Anti-Semitism is racism. It targets Jewish people as a people. It is hate, exclusion, and violence, and it needs to be opposed wherever it appears.
- Anti-Zionism is political opposition to a state ideology and the actions carried out in its name, particularly when that ideology manifests as ethnic nationalism, apartheid practices, and genocidal policy. Criticizing power structures and state violence is not racism; it is part of political accountability.
A lot of the current framing isn’t in any way about honest thinking, it’s about strategy. By collapsing these two terms together, critics of state violence can be delegitimized without engaging with the substance of what they are saying. This shifts debate away from material realities on the ground and into a defensive argument about identity.
We need to refuse that mess making. Instead of getting stuck in endless semantic traps, shift the conversation toward power, and consequences:
- Who holds power?
- Who is being harmed?
- What structures enable that harm?
- How do we build paths toward justice that don’t reproduce oppression?
Moments of political rupture – scandals, revelations, shifting alliances – often expose how #mainstreaming stories are constructed and maintained. When this happens, people become more open to re-examining “common sense” assumptions. That creates a needed opportunity for real social change and challenge.
The goal should not be to win rhetorical battles inside their broken frames, but to move discussion toward ethical clarity and collective responsibility. Keep the focus on actions, structures, and outcomes, not weaponized labels designed to shut conversation down.
This is where meaningful change begins #KISS
