Unlearning Anti-Zionism

I recently read "The Anti-Jewish Riots in Oslo" by Eirik Eiglad, a 2010 book discussing a multi-day incident of antizionist and antisemitic violence which occurred in Oslo, Norway, in during New Year's week in 2008-2009.

This is Part 2 of Chapter 1, "I Have Seen The Future."

My summary is indented, thoughts follow.

Following Eiglad's departure from the rally and counterprotest, which had turned into a rain of stones and bottles from the pro-Palestinian counterprotesters, alongside cries of "Allahu Akbar" and "Sieg Heil", and attacks on random bystanders, he goes to observe the Peace Rally at Youngstorget.

Speakers included two men mentioned by Eiglad, Mads Gilbert and Erik Fosse. Of the former, Eiglad notes that he defended the 9/11-attacks, and of the latter he writes that Fosse encouraged leftists "to support Khomeini's regime" in the 80s, going on to say that Fosse dismissed concerns over social conservatism as distorted, taking the view that imposing women's rights upon "Islamic culture" is cultural oppression.

After this, Eiglad leaves Youngstorget, but later learns that this alleged Peace Rally had people yelling "Kill the Jews", "Slaughter the Jews", and "Go get them!". The Rabbi of the Oslo Jewish Community Joav Melchior, and the community’s leader Anne Sender, were chased away, the former being told "Damn Jew", get lost".

Eiglad writes about reports later in the night detailing assaults on bystanders by groups of youths specifically on the hunt for Jews. People were assaulted, including two older men named Jon (62) and Sverre (73), the former had his arm fractured in four places. The latter was saved from too much brutality when the group attacking him learned he was "Norwegian", and "not a Jew". Journalists were also attacked, including by a Molotov cocktail, and a police car was smashed by a group chanting "Allahu Akbar".

Some in the mob walked to the Israeli embassy, about a 15 minutes walk away, but were met with heavy police guard surrounding the building. The crowd instead attacked the nearby beauty salon belonging to Jan Thomas, a Norwegian gay celebrity, who is not by any means politically active on the matter of Israel. Amongst the usual chants were several homophobic remarks and curses from the attacking groups.

In this chapter, Eiglad also shares his thoughts on the matter of antisemitism and antizionism, and comes to the conclusion that perhaps seems obvious to many Jews: Antizionism is often an expression of antisemitism; "I had long suspected that anti-Zionism had become the dominant form of anti-Semitism today." He further writes that "in today's anti-Zionism the "Jewish Entity" - Israel, and Zionism - supplants the Jew as an object of extreme hatred."

Eiglad is an antinationalist, but he notes that antizionism is itself often an expression of nationalism, in particular when the antinationalist-antizionist champions the national cause of the Palestinians. In my own interactions with supposed anarchists, in my former communities and in my comments on this blog, I have seen those who claim the anarchist label suspiciously only focusing on Israel and rarely their own (often European) countries. One may be tempted to ask, why does the world's only Jewish state have to be the one to give up its nation-state first?

The events Eiglad describe are, as I mentioned in the previous post, scarily similar to events that have played out since. I, like Eiglad, worry about the left and its ability to keep its house in order. When we on the left see our allies and friends chant "Kill the Jews" or "Sieg Heil", or fly the flag of Hezbollah and display the symbols of Hamas, do we act in defence of our principles and try to set our house in order?

Too often the answer is No; we didn't do it in 2008, and we don't do it now. Mads Gilbert, the man mentioned as having supported the 9/11-attacks, also called Hamas "brave" and the IDF "cowardly" after October 7th, reaffirming his support of the "resistance", by which he means Hamas. We've seen plenty of examples of the left harbouring antisemitism and violent antizionism in the United States, too. The most recent prominent example is of course Platner, but recall that Track AIPAC also endorsed Texas primary candidate (and loser! 🥳) Maureen Galindo, who wanted to create a concentration camp for American Zionists and castrate them. Mamdani's name bears mentioning, but if I go on I'll need to make a Part 2: Part 2.

Unfortunately it does not surprise me that the mob that intended to attack the Israeli embassy instead turned their ire against a gay man's salon. Eiglad speaks earlier in the book about his view that, in many political movements centring on the Middle East, "nationalist overtones tend to obscure or even contradict the more fundamental message of social liberation." If we are to call ourselves leftists, we cannot permit Palestinian nationalism (or Israeli nationalism for that matter, though that's often less of an issue) to inject social conservatism and homophobia into our movements. And yet, even many queer leftists will excuse the violent queerphobia of Hamas, and fly Hezbollah flags with the background changed to pride flags. It's sickening, and emblematic of seriously flawed reasoning. Are you truly so willing to throw your principles of social liberation in the dirt for the sake of antisemitic nationalist terrorism? If so, you are no ally of mine.

I recently read "The Anti-Jewish Riots in Oslo" by Eirik Eiglad, a 2010 book discussing a multi-day incident of antizionist and antisemitic violence which occurred in Oslo, Norway, in during New Year's week in 2008-2009.

Eiglad, much like myself, is on the political left and a socialist, who is deeply critical of the antizionism and antisemitism prevalent in our own house. His book is part of reckoning with that, and I'd like to present my thoughts on the book, chapter by chapter, possibly in multiple parts. The cover of the book is quite striking; a picture of graffiti reading "Drep Zionistene" (sic, in Norwegian it's spelled with S, not Z...), which means "Kill the Zionists".

My summary is indented, thoughts follow.

In the first chapter, Eiglad discusses the incidents that took place on the first day of the protests, during which there were three events planned; a pro-Israel rally, a pro-Palestinian counterdemonstration, and a general peace-rally later in the evening. Eiglad was not intending to attend either event, he was only there to observe. Along the way to the protests were vendors selling keffiyehs (which made him wonder when he last saw anyone publicly wearing a Magen David...), Maoists handing out leaflets with antisemitic cartoons by Carlos Latuff, and pictures of dead children with labels denouncing Israel as “child murderers”. 

What he observed was that the pro-Palestinian side was not simply opposed to the ongoing Gaza war, and concerned about Israeli conduct, but actively anti-Israel and, in many instances, distinctly pro-Hamas. Over the course of the evening, chants of “Israel: Terrorist” morphed into “Allahu Akbar” and “Hamas, Hamas”, with several incidents of Nazi salutes and shouts of “Sieg Heil” which went unchallenged in the pro-Palestine camp. Flags and symbols of Hamas and Hezbollah were also observed directly by Eiglad.

Amongst a rain of bottles, eggs, and rocks thrown by the pro-Palestinian protestors against the pro-Israel rally, several tried to climb the riot fence past the police guard. Beaten back, some instead began targeting people outside the fence. Eiglad recounts how he placed himself between a group of 15-20 keffiyeh-clad protestors and a man carrying a small Israeli flag. The group was pushing him and antagonizing him, and continued antagonizing Eiglad; both men did not retaliate. Eiglad was pushed, spat on, and kicked in the groin, and called Zionist and Jew, for defending the surrounded man. Pro-Palestinian protestors continued clashing with police throughout.

Does it also seem to you that this could have taken place today?

Because it was rather dour to think that this is a description of events happening in 2008; in my own country, no less. Perhaps I'm just too young to have been cognisant of it at the time, I was only a teenager in 2008, but so were several of the people who attacked Eiglad that night. I wonder where they are now...

Well, I do know where one of the people at the protests is now; Anders Dale, or Muslim Abu Abdurrahman, leftist-turned-jihadi who is allegedly rotting in prison in Yemen for making bombs for al-Queda.

It sadly isn't too surprising that "Jew" is used as both an insult and accusation against Eiglad. That is nothing new, and not new to this country either. In a 2011 report by Bufdir (Norwegian Directorate for Children, Youth, and Family Affairs), published only a year after this book, a report found that "Jew" as an insult is prevalent in Oslo schools, with about half of respondents stating that it's used negatively amongst them, and that cruel statements and jokes are common.

Antisemitic attitudes have only become more common in Norway since then; Oslo Police have reported increased antisemitic hate crimes, and in 2026 the Center for Holocaust and Minority Studies in Norway also reports an increase. Their report specifically notes incidents of the use of "Jew" as a slur in schools.

Then there's the Nazi salute. Is Platner's name ringing in anyone else's ears? He's by no means the first Nazi on the pro-Palestine side of course, lest we forget that even Amin al-Husseini was no stranger to throwing up a Nazi salute during his stay in Hitler's Germany. Seeing Nazi shit like this go unchallenged by leftists, even today, is utterly infuriating. Sadly, it's nothing new.

"It's nothing new" really is the book in a nutshell.

This is what we might call motte-and-bailey argumentation. Texas Democratic Primary candidate Maureen Galindo provides us with an excellent example to illustrate this.

In an Instagram post made recently, Galindo promised to write legislation that will criminalise "[...] all Zionism and support of Zionism [...]", and "turn Karnes ICE Detention Center into a prison for American Zionists [...]". The post further stated that "[The detention centre] will also be a castration processing center for pedophiles which will probably be most of the Zionists."

Let us partition these statements made by Galindo.

Zionism should be a criminal offence in the US.

"Support of Zionism" should also be a criminal offence.

Offenders (Zionists) should be imprisoned.

Pedophiles should be castrated.

Most Zionists are pedophiles.

For the purposes of this post we will ignore the third and fourth arguments, though I will state that I vehemently disagree with both statements. They are not my focus here.

Galindo does not define Zionism in her original post, and so the reader is left to intuit what is meant by this. Zionists will naturally we aware that Zionism is a broad umbrella term, which shares one primary notion, and we can rely on the definition formulated in the Basel Program of the First Zionist Congress for the purpose of this post: "Zionism strives to create for the Jewish people a home in Palestine secured by public law." (from Zionism, Britannica, 2026). The inverse of this, the disestablishment of a Jewish home in Palestine secured by public law, is antizionism (though there are complexities I will not account for here, for brevity's sake).

Whether Galindo intended for her readers to assume the aforementioned definition of Zionism, however, is not for us to know. What we do know is what she said in response to the backlash her post rightfully incurred. From Newsweek's article Who is Maureen Galinco? (2026), quoting Galindo herself, "When I say I want billionaire Zionists in prison, that does not mean I want Jews in internment camps." In a subsequent quote we get what passes for her definition of Zionism.

"I don't care what religion you are. If you are a Zionist, —meaning that you believe that you are just entitled to land or someone's just entitled to land based off of religious beliefs, and that you'll kill all of the Semites for it—then yeah, I think that you're a danger to humanity and belong in prison, especially if you have the political and economic resources to make that happen."

This is the retreat in action. Galindo adds the adjective "billionaire", which was not present in her original Instagram post, and establishes a unique post-hoc definition of Zionism and applies it to her argumentation. I do not know if she held this definition in mind when she made her original Instagram post or not, but it certainly appears to be in the style of a motte-and-bailey argument. What is not in doubt is that the injection of the term "billionaire" is a retreat from a bailey to a motte.

For the purposes of this post I will not even touch the manner in which she uses the term "Semite", though I will again note my utter opposition to the way in which it is utilized in her arguments.

When people like Galindo employ this strategy, they demonstrate their bad faith approach to the topic at hand. It will not come as a surprise to anyone that a politician is arguing in bad faith, of course, but there is a distinction I believe needs to be made between the usual vague promises of politicians, and promises of actual harm against vaguely defined groups of people. "Zionists", in the manner in which Galindo defines them, is enormously vague even in the context of these two elements I have looked at here. "Support of Zionism" is even less vague, but according Galindo's original post it appears to be due the same penalty as that afforded to "Zionists."

I have seen accusations of the attack being a false flag, I have seen people claim that the media is disproportionally reporting on the event and making it a bigger deal than it is, and predictably I have also seen those who place the blame of the attack on Israel and the government's actions.

When I was an antizionist, I did not see such sentiments as indicators of unreasonable people. I saw it as understandable if somewhat misdirected anger and confusion.

Now, however, I feel I am able to see such statements for what they are. Indicators of a conspiratorial mindset that focuses on Jews, above all others, as supposed engineers of their own victimisation. The people who say such things are not steered by empathy, but by an ideological framework that isn't capable of interacting with reality.

An ideological framework that has categorised Israel, and Jews by extension, as an oppressor class. In that mindset, such an oppressor class cannot be victimised, and if they are then it must be constructed as a conspiratorial event in which, in truth, the oppressor class wins in the end.

The perception was that all defenders of Israel lie, and everything must be interpreted as a lie, a distortion of the truth, or veiling a hidden agenda.

The term "hasbara" came up a fair bit, and the way it was utilized by them was as a classic thought-terminating cliche - that is, a phrase meant to stop critical thought or evaluation.

Allow me to present an example.

I pointed out that there was no pre-existing independent Israel or Palestine prior to the 1948 division, instead the Mandate had communities engaged in wars between one another. There was not a militarily superior independent Israel invading a meek and repressed independent Palestine.

My statement was called "hasbara", and so it was dismissed out of hand, without being evaluated or taken into consideration. My statement is not a matter of opinion, it is historical fact, but it was waved away.

This statement of mine was made to counter a statement by an antizionist, that "Israel had invaded Palestine in 1948 and conquered it." This statement is perhaps to some so bafflingly ignorant and ahistorical it should by rights disqualify anyone from intelligent discourse, but I engaged out of a desire to have a common ground of understanding. It wasn't received well, and I was branded a liar and manipulator.

The notion that those who argue for Israel always lie, always twist the truth, or have a hidden agenda, is rooted in the antisemitic notion that Jews lie, and Jews cannot be trusted. By extension, Zionists cannot be trusted, even to repeat historical fact.

I am not even yet a completed convert, and yet I was accused.

There is, however, a limit to such respect. On both sides of the equation there are radical elements who will tolerate or even amplify extremely harmful rhetoric, because it is coming from their own side. This happens on the antizionist side just as it happens on the Zionist side of the argument. In my time I have seen plenty of outright antisemitism from antizionists and I've seen Kahanist or Islamophobic sentiment from Zionists, too.

This blog is about antizionism so that will be my focus, but let it not be said that I discount those on "my side" that exhibit extremely problematic views.

-

In antizionist spaces I used to frequent, it was not terribly uncommon to see sentiment that presented itself as believeably antizionist, but which held antisemitic kernels or elements. Statements such as "Israel controls Discord so be careful what you say", or "Israel controls US foreign policy" were not challenged, instead permitted or even acknowledged as truths not requiring discussion. These statements are, of course, false.

They also contain kernels of antisemitism. The claim that Israel controls Discord, for instance, is perhaps based in the true fact that the creators of Discord are Jewish. The false connection is the common antisemitic sentiment that Jews are unfailingly loyal only to Israel, or that being Jewish necessarily means Israel has a hand in what you make or operate. "Israel controls Discord" has the appearance of antizionism, but it veils antisemitism. Apply the same idea of this shadowy cabal behind it all to the US foreign policy claim, and you see the connection. It veils antisemitism.

I believe, however, that these statements are not necessarily made with antisemitic intent. Doubtless some do have antisemitic intent, it is not lost on me that many veiled statements such as those above have their origins in antisemitic far-right circles that specifically coin phrases amenable to the antizionist left...

Howerver, I don't think necessarily those leftists who repeat these statements have some deep-held antisemitism in their hearts, and it isn't even for me to say if they do.

But to reference the YouTuber Ian Danskin: They are, at least some of the time, doing antisemitism.

Now, let it be said from the start that I am not some shill for the United States. I have major issues with the country and its presumptive role on the world stage, not just under Trump but also under its more liberal eras. The contrarianism I experienced, however, is not based in reality, or if it is, then it does not function to interact with reality.

It is in effect a reflexive and often uncritical support for any enemy of the United States, and also of Israel. It may take the form of excusing actions made by this enemy, denying or minimizing the ways in which the values and goals of the enemy doesn't align with the values and goals of the speaker, voicing support or signal boosting for this enemy, or proudly displaying the symbols of this enemy.

Examples of such enemies of the US and Israel are Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, or the Houthis, to name only the most known and most seen.

From the outside it is rather baffling to see queer, self-proclaimed socialists, whose apartment walls are draped with a trans flag on one side and a Hezbollah flag on the other, loudly cheer for Houthi rockets with neopronouns in their bios. For those steeped in a certain noxious antizionism, however, it becomes entirely not baffling, and indeed par for the course. For them, these enemies of the US or Israel are their allies. My beloved queer friends, you are wrong.

Part of what drove me away from antizionism was seeing self-described leftists cheer on such aforementioned enemies, and use every poor argument in the book to argue that Iran's brutal violence against queer people is perfectly excusable within dialectical materialism, or that the Houthi "a curse upon the Jews"-flag is actually a brilliant bit of Gen-Z ragebaiting and not at all reflective of any actual antisemitism on the part of the radicals themselves.

No. Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis are not my friends and they are not worthy of my support, even as I still firmly believe in Palestinian self-determination and in the betterment of conditions for Israeli Arabs and Muslims within a Jewish Israel.

It is hard to fathom how I could ever have believed they were.

I can't believe I ever lent my voice in support.

It's easy to deny that I ever did.

But I won't deny it.

When the Jews of Germany and Austria attempted to flee from the increasing brutality of the Nazi regime, the European powers closed their doors. Over 200,000 Jews remained in Germany at the start of the war with Poland, and it soon became clear that fleeing Germany was not enough. The Pale was shattered, and six million Jews were killed.

Those who survived were not welcomed kindly by anti-Nazi Allied powers. They remained in camps. They remained until the establishment of Israel.

The establishment of Israel was the rescue of the Jews of Europe.

-

After 1948, when the Arab states had failed in their attempt to destroy the Jewish state, they turned on the Jews in their own countries. Jews who had been there for untold generations, some of the oldest diaspora communities in the world were persecuted, massacred, bombed, and chased out, or fled for their lives.

By the end of the century, the Arab world went from a population of about a million Jews, to that of a few thousand.

The majority of those who fled went to Israel. Israel aided in their escape, from Iraq and from Yemen and from Syria and elsewhere.

The establishment of Israel was the rescue of the Jews of the Arab world.

-

That story is vital to the understanding of Israel.

The antizionist view of Israel and Zionism as fundamentally a settler-colonial project, a project of Europeans staking their last great claim to the global south, is a view that is fundamentally ignorant to the reality of Israel and its population.

Even if Hertzl and Nordau and all the rest were awful people who said awful things of Arabs and of their fellow Jews, it does not change the reality that Israel is the safe harbor in a world that had none to spare, and a world that proved itself utterly unwilling to tolerate Jews the moment it was not beneficial to do so.

These days it is becoming less beneficial every day to tolerate Jews, and Israel is as vital as ever to the survival of the Jewish people.

I highly recommend seeking out talks made by Haviv Rettig Gur. I will attach one video here, but there is much more to be found, including his excellent podcast and his appearances on podcasts produced by the Times of Israel.

Take a moment to learn the history, and use this as a springboard to learn more.

What other communities in Europe require this much protection? What other communities are targets of such threats and violence that they need armed guard, or concrete barricades, or fences with locked gates, or security cameras covering every angle of entry? What other community centers are forced to require ID checks, and keep the addresses of community events closely guarded, out of fear for their members?

While other communities may have security measures, few require as much as Jewish communities do.

Why?

-

In my country there was a terrorist attack on the 25th of June 2022. A man aligned with Daesh (ISIS) shot and killed two people, and injured 21 others, in an attack that was motivated by hatred of the queer community. In response, the Pride event was cancelled, and security was tightened around subsequent events.

Cameras, police presence, vehicles or concrete barricates blocking large entryways, and events held behind fences. This didn't just happen in my country, it has happened throughout Europe and elsewhere, and has caused such security and counter-terrorist measures to be implemented at pride rallies and parades.

Why?

-

When it's not about Jews, the answer is easy: It's bigotry, it's hate, it's terrorism. It's targeted threats and violence against a community for being who they are.

When it's about Jews, somehow people make it so much more complicated. But it isn't more complicated: It's bigotry, it's hate, it's terrorism. It's targeted threats and violence against a community for being who they are.

There was an idea that the Nakba - which I still fully regard as a horrific act of violence, to be clear - was a crime so heinous in its scope and scale that it renders Israel illegitimate. It's a sympathetic argument to be sure, because who could support the continued existence of a state which was founded on ethnic cleansing?

However, I always struggled to see it as unprecedented.

After all, ethnic cleansing was not a new phenomenon in the process of building a nation-state in the 1900s, both before and after the Holocaust.

I say this not to excuse the Nakba, but to provide historical context for the express purpose of demonstrating that it was not unprecedented.

The so-called Population Exchange between the Kingdom of Greece and the newly established Republic of Türkiye displaced more people than the Nakba did.

The conflict between the Kurds and the states of Syria and Iraq have been going on since the founding of the states themselves, and have killed and displaced more people than Israel has ever done.

The Partition of India killed and displaced more people than Israel has ever done.

Are Greece, Türkiye, Syria, Iraq, India, and Pakistan also made fundamentally illegitimate by such actions? If you say yes, then I must applaud your integrity, because most anti-Zionists I have met would say no. In their eyes, Israel is still uniquely illegitimate... and one has to wonder why.

If this is the argument, that Israel is illegitimate due to its historic and ongoing violence but Iraq is not, Syria is not, Iran is not, no other country besides Israel...? Then I struggle to see the intellectual honesty.

So, to me, this argument is illegitimate. In my experience it rests on ignorance, or at least a focus that is so narrow that it becomes myopic and dishonest.

If the Nakba is a horrific crime which should tar the reputation of Israel until its victims are compensated - and it IS - then the same goes for Greece, Türkiye, Syria, Iraq, India, Pakistan, and the numerous other countries whose founding came out of or relied on ethnic cleansing or brutal intercommunal violence.

The default position in my mind was that a Zionist is someone who uncritically supports Israel as an ethnocentric apartheid settler-colony.

Curiously I never thought of any other country or nation that way. I could recognize a diversity of opinions in all other places and all other nations, and recognize that even in the most brutal dictatorships there are those who oppose the state with every fiber of their being.

I could not recognize a diversity of opinion in Israel or its supporters, and... that was antisemitic. It was not just factually incorrect, it was antisemitic.

So with such a default position, I had engaged in argument with the absolute worst assumptions in mind. Those who defended Israel as a Jewish state were surely just as bad as the Nazis, and certainly couldn't have been normal people defending their country from the most unhinged conspiracy theories and accusations.

However, cracks in my ideological armor had begun to form, and I had started learning things I previously considered unnecessary to learn...

-

Then one day, when I had started learning about Israeli and Jewish history, I took to the defense of Israel.

In a discussion concerning its right to exist (not about the current wars, not even about anything past 1950, just its origins), I was branded as a Jewish Nazi. I was branded as supporting genocide, supporting ethnic cleansing, supporting some religiously ordained "chosen people" ethnostate "promised to them 3000 years ago"; it all came right back at me, in an argument which was otherwise wholly civil, measured, and concerned only the leadup to Israeli independence.

In this discussion I had repeatedly denounced the Nakba, the genocide, the illegal settlements, and the annexations. Those weren't lies on my part; only a year ago I would have said Israel should be wholly destroyed for these very sins... but there was nothing I could say to make them believe me. They assumed the absolute worst.

I hate to say that I only understood when it was turned against me; I had questioned my anti-Zionism for some time before daring to publicly defend Israel in argument. The accusations levied against me put it into perspective and it feels monsterously selfish to admit it, but it made me understand how unfair I had been towards others, who had previously taken the position I now held.

I was furious, I was upset, I was hurt, and I was utterly powerless. And I was ashamed that I could ever have made others feel what I now felt.

I wish I could say there was one definite moment where my views on Israel changed, and I stopped calling myself an Anti-Zionist.

I wish I could say there was one argument that truly convinced me, or one event that made it apparent that I had been wrong all along.

The Anti-Zionism I held to was not by any means moderate; it was radical, it was uncompromising, and it was terribly, terribly wrong.

I was wholly sold on the notion that the entirety of Israel was a colonial enterprise, an apartheid state made up primarily of white-skinned settlers from Western Europe and North America, and that practically the entire nation was full of people whose primary ambition was expansion and control.

All of this is wrong.

I do not claim to have been deceived, I don't think my anti-Zionism came out of some organized attempt to manipulate me. I was ignorant, I lied to myself with the certainty that I knew what needed to be known.

I didn't know. It turned out I didn't even know the basics.