Tony Greenstein makes the case best that David Miller, an academic researching power relations who was dismissed from Bristol University in UK for alleged Antisemitism in 2021, then fought to reverse this and won in 2024 on the point that anti-Zionism is not Antisemitism, has gone past anti-Zonism now and is clearly antisemitic.
Tony makes the case well, and I agree that many of Miller's recent statements are clearly antisemitic, and this is not a good practice for the Palestine Solidarity Movement to follow. However, at the same time, I disagree with some of Greenstein's statements which (weirdly for him) seem to minimize the power of Zionism and the Israel Lobby as distinct from imperialism in general. For example, Tony says flatly:
I explained that Zionism was the creation of British imperialism and Christian Zionism not Jews.
That's laughable. Is Tony saying Zionist Jews like Lord Rothschild, for whom the Balfour Declaration was written, was a victim of British Imperialism? As was Herzl? No, Zionist Jews were involved from the start, pushing the Zionist project forwards even before British Imperialism got involved, though much of Zionist success was from their ultimate alignment with western imperialism, which in some cases had included them already.
Tony seems to feel that when you don't mean the collectivity of all Jews you must not say Jews. But this feels ridiculous after awhile. Must we say that the Empire State Building was built by some humans.
The murderous genocidal and apartheid state of Israel is the sad result of many things, including both Western Imperialism and Jewish Zionism*, even though Jewish Zionism was fairly fringe for a long time, but not so fringe as not to have included leading figures like Rothschild and Brandeis. In the beginning, Jewish Zionism was a bourgeois Jewish (oh, excuse me, some bourgeois Jews) movement, one that some wealthy Jews saw the most potential in, and many middle and working class Jews were afraid of, but by 1900 over 100,000 Jews were members. That wasn't just global bankers. Perhaps most working class Jews were afraid it would be an excuse for deportation to Palestine, but others saw it as something that might be useful for others. Despite the scriptural prohibitions, many Jews felt that some Jews might need it some day, so adopted a "let them do it if they want to" non-Zionist posture. Anti-Zionism was the bigger thing, but it did not include all Jews, many were non-Zionist and some were Zionist.
We should not ignore the fact that some Jews, Zionist Jews, have been actively promoting a state of genocide and apartheid since at least 1890 and ultimately got most other Jews to buy in. This gave and still gives Western Imperialism a huge boost for many bad deeds related to Zionism. Jews are all over, richer than average all the way to the top, well organized, politically plural, and smart. Few other Imperialist visions have such a solid base of support, at least if it's just money and votes and not western lives (and even a few of those can be ignored by a compliant media).
I myself had avoided using the term Jewish Supremacism feeling that it could be interpreted as antisemitic. But then, lo, I heard none other than Norman Finkelstein giving a short briefing on why that term was superior to anti-Zionism. What Zionism means, exactly, is not well enough defined, Finkelstein declared. Meanwhile everyone understands what Jewish Supremacism means.
Did Zionism ever mean (as apparently some like Chomsky (a Kibbutznik in the 1950's) a socialist state in historic Palestine with equal rights for all?
I almost find it hard to believe that someone as smart as Chomsky couldn't see from the history of Zionism that this was never the case for the actual Zionist movement, though it may have been a pipe dream for some very closeted left leaning Jews. (And I know how my own thinking has rotated 360 degrees or more over my lifetime, so I'm willing to accept youthful ignorance.).
And I felt at first that Finkelstein was doing some covering for the likes of Chomsky (who Finkelstein counted as a friend). I still think that Zionism is the word we in the Palestine Solidarity Movement must use. Zionism is a specific and extreme manifestation of Jewish Supremacism, and the one we must unite to dismantle. Otherwise, whether Jews feel superior to others is not of much importance, unless there is specific nepotism or discrimination that violates the law, notions of fairness, etc., above and beyond what is otherwise apparent in capitalist society.
I have not seen important cases of Jewish Supremacism distinct from Zionism that need social movement opposition (though the broad Jewish Zionist ownership of media in the US, UK, and Australia is troubling and apparent chokehold on US political parties is also troubling, notably they are everywhere and ALWAYS linked to Zionism rather than anti-Zionism).
I did however take the cue from Finkelstein that Jewish Supremacism wasn't just an antisemitic slur, and I can now accept it as such, but I will continue using the term Zionism which I believe is well enough defined by the movement Herzl started and Israel continues.
In general I do not believe anyone needs protection from racial slurs as such. Free Speech extends to the point of imminent lawlessness. People need protection from objective and material things: murderous gangs, discrimination, occupation, theft, fraud, and needless war.
If it didn't miscolor the Palestine Solidarity movement, I'd be inclined to let David Miller's errors slide. Such as they are, I believe they warrant condemnation and not yet banning or disconnection. Like many others, Miller may still have interesting things to say. No one is 100% correct and even 10% is good enough to be useful if you know what you are dealing with.
But this gets back to a broader point. Though most Zionists are always perfectly clear about their intentions, there are also Mossad or Zionist spies, assets, and similar infiltrators who may sometimes appear to be something different from what they actually are. At what point do we suspect infiltration?
It should never be on the basis of being Jewish because that is ethnic discrimination pure and simple. Despite Zionist claims, many Jews are anti-Zionist, and this was even more true in the distant past, and becoming more true again now.
I believe in the authenticity of the views expressed by Finkelstein, JVP, and even Chomsky who was a friend of Epstein**, and in most cases accept them as my own. There might be a shill or spy here or there among such groups, as in all political groups, but the groups as a whole are not operating to undermine Palestinian solidarity. Groups that give visibility to the Palestinian cause are not helping Zionists and not the kinds of things Zionists would create. At most they would might try to infiltrate and control them however. (In fact, JVP was not always anti-Zionist. After they changed their posture to anti-Zionism in 2019, a significant percentage of members left. It would be hard to believe the shift to anti-Zionism was an expression of Mossad control.)
Furthermore, any organized spy agency was assets of many kinds. Mossad might even find it better to go under cover of Zionist arabs and Christians, even islamic radicals like ISIS and Al Qaeda.
I think the best starting point is always to assume people are being honest and forthright, as most are. Even a few errors are admissible. Only a long pattern unforced errors and bad faith arguments reach the point of serious suspicion where you would openly discuss such things. It's also good to realize that even Mossad has finite resources and isn't everywhere and always.
Trust no one, but appear to trust everyone unless there is good cause not to. (That's the only way someone as paranoid as I am can survive.)
One place where I see Miller as having gone over the edge is casting aspersions on groups like JVP and Jewish anti-Zionists without sufficient evidence.
(*Nowadays many will point out that Christian Zionism began before the modern Zionist movement. And there are now more Christian Zionists than Jewish Zionists. While it is true that Christian Zionism is a thing which makes it possible for the likes of Trump to win elections, I do not believe it has the same power as Jewish Zionism. For Christian Zionists it's a theological concern, for Jewish Zionists it's personal, family, tribe, etc. And the Jewish Zionists and Israel Lobby and Jewish Zionist media are far better organized, lavishly funded by wealthy Jews, etc. Ironically, the historic and official theology of Judaism in both Torah and Talmud opposes Zionism, mere mortals must not create a Jewish State, but Zionists paint over that with romantic feelings and talmudic arguments.)
(**Chomsky was clearly saying a lot of things about Israel which Zionists would not want to be said. But I also think that both he and Finkelstein have a tendency to dismiss "Conspiracy Theories" too casually. There are concrete reasons to suspect that the JFK and RFK assassinations were aided by Zionist groups and that those assassinations worked to Zionist's benefit. Even 9/11. These could have been elite intelligence and/or mob conspiracies, only a small number of Jews participated, not Jewish-supported mass movements like Communism and Pride that antisemites like to harp on (and BTW Communism, Pride, and masturbation aids are good things). Zionists have a well documented history of assassinations and perfidy--and there's no reason to believe USA would be immune. I believe it was his continual denunciation of conspiracy theories like these that put Chomsky into Epstein's network. Zionists and Israel liked that part of Chomsky's influence. But they were legitimately Chomsky's own views, and they even now have the greatest academic respectability. But we also need people who honestly explore power relations, the other side of the debate, and it has little been done for obvious reasons. The delicious irony we know now is that Chomsky, while denouncing secret Jewish networks as a means of control, was himself in the most notorious one. We need a David Miller but with a bit more discernment than he's had recently. We also need good conspiracy theorists. Contra Miller, Jewish anti-Zionism is real and we need good Jewish Anti-Zionism for many reasons, including that Jews--and former Jews--are good at communications and media, and ultimately it is Jews who must most be convinced that Zionism was a terrible wrong turn for Jews, sold to them by the Jewish Zionist hucksters and western imperialists. They almost certainly will eventually be convinced by the implosion of the Zionist entity, but sooner is better for everyone. Just showing Jews how popular anti-Zionism is among other Jews is a good first step. Zionists clearly seek to suppress anti-Zionist protests everywhere, not amplify them.
Meanwhile, I am open to the possibility that, following Chomsky, too many anti-Zionist jews have become too much opposed to power, network, and conspiracy theories, and that could suggest Chomsky or Zionist mindshare if not influence. Miller himself is wrong to discount the Zionist lobbies. It's quite simple, you influence the selection of the politicians through a powerful lobby, then the politicians control the selection of cabinet members themselves being under the influence of the lobby as well as the control of certain oligarchs (in Trump's case, they're all Zionists), then the cabinet members control the State Department, etc. Zionists don't have to "infiltrate" the State Department under false cover, they own the top guy.
One thing that could help with undue Jewish saturation in certain industries is DEI. Funny that Trump once agreed with Mark Levine that he was our first Jewish President.)
"Jewish Supramicism" doesn't mean that all Jews are Jewish Supramacists. Just like White Supremacists doesn't mean that all Whites are White Supremacists. What it means is that some Jews take their Jewish identity as a basis for a supremacist way of thinking, as exemplified by Nazism and Zionism. And that supremacist way of thinking always leads to a physical and ethical disaster.
Tony Greenstein doesn't think 'supremacism' was what many early Zionist Jews were feeling. They were thinking of some kind of 'escape' from antisemitism. But it was supremacist because it views other places as 'empty' and therefore ripe for settlement, not seeing the people already there as having important reasons to be there too. In effect, we have more important reasons to be there than they do. This takes many forms, from Golda Meier's "there are no Palestinians" to the claim that "God promised this land to us" or "We are the indigenous people" (which are, curiously, inconsistent notions, and both wrong. After they got many things wrong, God told Jews that they must wait for the Messiah. All available evidence suggests the Palestinians are more closely descended from the Levantine population of 0BCE and before than "Jews", the isolated Samaritans most closely of all. Most modern Palestinian Muslims are descended from Judeans of 0BCE who converted to Christianity and then Islam when convenient to do so. Not all of the people in Judea were ever expelled by the Romans, it was mainly the soldiers and elites in and around Jerasalem who were expelled. Since then, modern Jews have picked up a lot of European and other ancestries, diluting their original Judean ancestry. Meanwhile, virtually everyone in the west has some Judean ancestry by conversion, intermarriage, or false paternity because of all the generations that have transpired. The claim that you own a place because your ancestors did has widely been regarded as ludicrous, except by Zionists.).
Not only does the Talmud specifically state that Jews must not create a State or mass migrate to historic Judea, but much of the Talmud is devoted to the questions that arise when you are a minority ethic population in diaspora. Talmudic Judaism is fundamentally about being cosmopolitan. There is no other way to "heal the world." Call that edict 'supremacist' if you like, I agree that in principle it could become paternalistic, but it's not Supremacism. 'Healing' is not displacement, war, apartheid, genocide, etc., or anything done for just us. Healing means we help others make their lives better. Capital S Supremacism views other's lives as insignificant, "we are the victims," so others can be displaced, dispossessed, or even killed without remorse, as we see today. Meanwhile, the principle of hospitality, of treating others as we would like to be treated, is fundamental to Judaism. Not only does Judaism forbid murdering non-Jews, it requires Jews to save the lives of non-Jews except when it would be necessary to break one of 3 other commandments: murder, adultery, and idolatry, but not including the Sabbath. It is required to break the Sabbath to save anyone's life. Zionism is the antithesis of Judaism.
