Sir Afilonius Rex and Lila de Alba

Toledo, 21st December 2025

David Jacobs wrote the following comment on X:

“Many on this platform still believe that they can tease Zionism away from Judaism. That’s not possible. It’s time for me to repost my previous explanation. And yes, if you use ‘Zionist’ as a slur, or rage against Zionists, you are indeed a Jew hater.”

This is a considered and measured response to that tweet and associated tweets.

A Critique of the Oversimplified, Manipulative Conflation of Zionism and Judaism

Look, the tweet (and the lengthy thread it’s reposting) from David Jacobs (@DrJacobsRad) is a textbook example of hasbara-style rhetoric. It’s polished advocacy that masquerades as intellectual depth. Ultimately, it serves to shut down legitimate debate by weaponising accusations of antisemitism. It’s not just intellectually lazy. It’s dangerously reductive. It ignores centuries of Jewish diversity and historical context. It overlooks the very real distinctions between a political ideology and a multifaceted ethnoreligious identity. Let’s break it down harshly, point by point. This kind of argument doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. It often does more harm than good by alienating potential allies. It also stifles criticism.

1. The False Inseparability Claim: Zionism Isn’t Baked into Judaism – It’s a Modern Invention

Jacobs insists that Zionism (the belief in a Jewish homeland in Israel) is inseparable from Judaism. He argues this because the Torah mentions “Israel” over 2,500 times. God promises the land to Abraham’s descendants. Additionally, prayers like the Shema or “Next year in Jerusalem” reference it. Sounds profound, right? Wrong, it’s a cherry-picked, literalist reading that flattens Judaism into a monolithic nationalist manifesto.

• Judaism predates political Zionism by millennia. Theodor Herzl’s Zionism emerged in the late 19th century. It was a secular response to European antisemitism. It was also a reaction to nationalism. It was not a direct fulfilment of ancient texts. Many religious Jews historically interpreted those Torah passages as spiritual or messianic aspirations. They did not view them as calls for a modern nation-state with tanks and borders.
• This ignores entire branches of Judaism that explicitly reject Zionism. Ultra-Orthodox groups like Neturei Karta or Satmar Hasidim argue that establishing a Jewish state before the Messiah arrives is blasphemous. They believe it violates the Torah’s prohibitions against “hastening the end.” They pray for Jerusalem too, but see the State of Israel as a secular heresy. If Zionism were truly inseparable from Judaism, these deeply observant Jews wouldn’t exist. Alternatively, Jacobs would have to call them “not real Jews.” This notion is absurd and exclusionary.
• Harsh truth: This argument erases Jewish pluralism to force-fit a political agenda. It’s like claiming all Christians must support the Crusades because the Bible mentions Jerusalem. It’s ahistorical nonsense that treats sacred texts as real estate deeds rather than complex spiritual guides.

2. The Slippery Slope to Labelling Critics as “Jew Haters”: A Classic Smear Tactic

The tweet’s punchline is the real poison here. It states, “If you use ‘Zionist’ as a slur, or rage against Zionists, you are indeed a Jew hater.” This statement carries a harmful implication. It equates opposition to a political movement with hatred of an entire people. It’s a blatant attempt to equate opposition to a political movement with hatred of an entire people. This attempt is not only logically flawed. It is also ethically bankrupt.

• Not all criticism of Zionism is antisemitic, and pretending otherwise is a deflection. Sure, some antisemites hide behind anti-Zionist rhetoric (e.g., Holocaust deniers or conspiracy theorists). Still, many critics are motivated by human rights concerns. These critics include Jews like Noam Chomsky and Judith Butler. Organisations like Jewish Voice for Peace also share these motivations. They oppose occupation or hold anti-colonial principles. Raging against “Zionists” in the context of, say, Israeli policies in Gaza or the West Bank isn’t inherently Jew-hatred. It’s political rage against a government’s actions.
• This conflation is straight out of the hasbara playbook. By broadening “antisemitism” to include any anti-Zionism, it shields Israel from accountability. The IHRA working definition of antisemitism, which includes examples like denying Jewish self-determination, has faced criticism. Scholars and free speech advocates have criticised it for chilling discussions on Palestinian rights. It also affects claims about Israeli apartheid, as documented by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.
• Harshly put: This is manipulative gaslighting. It turns victims of genuine antisemitism into shields for a state’s policies, while branding principled dissenters as bigots. If your argument relies on calling critics “haters” without engaging their points, it’s not an explanation; it’s intimidation.

3. The “Why They Want to Separate Them” Paranoia: Projecting Motives to Avoid Real Debate

Jacobs starts by accusing activists and academics of separating Judaism from Zionism to enable antisemitism under the guise of civility (e.g., chanting “Zionists aren’t welcome” instead of “Jews aren’t”). This is a straw man built on bad-faith assumptions.

• People separate them because they are separate. Zionism is a nationalist ideology with secular roots. It involves land acquisition, state-building, and sometimes displacement. These are not universally endorsed in Jewish tradition. Critics aren’t “pretending” to draw distinctions; they’re acknowledging reality. For instance, pre-1948, many Bundist Jews (socialists) opposed Zionism in favour of diaspora rights. Today, diaspora Jews often critique Israeli actions without rejecting their Jewish identity.
• The thread’s video examples (protests chanting against Zionists) are cherry-picked to evoke sympathy, but they ignore context. Protests against Zionism often target ideology or policy, not ethnicity. Flipping it to “Jews aren’t welcome” is a false equivalence; it’s like saying criticising capitalism means hating Americans.
• Brutal critique: This is conspiratorial thinking that paints opponents as sneaky antisemites rather than people with valid grievances. It dodges hard questions (e.g., about Palestinian displacement or settlements) by focusing on motives. If your “explanation” starts with “they want to do this to hate Jews,” you’ve already lost the plot. It is not an analysis. It is a projection.

4. The Added Secular Argument: Hypocritical Double Standards on Self-Determination

The thread includes a reply from @GazelleSharmahd arguing that anti-Zionism denies Jews ethnic self-determination, which no other group faces (e.g., the French in France). This sounds fair until you unpack it.

• Self-determination is a right, but not absolute; it doesn’t justify denying others’ rights. Kurds, Catalans, and Indigenous peoples worldwide fight for self-determination without states, often because it conflicts with existing borders or populations. Singling out Jews as the only victims here ignores parallels (e.g., Tibetans vs. China) and the unique context of Israel/Palestine, where two peoples claim the same land.
• Ironically, this argument often supports Israeli expansionism while ignoring Palestinian self-determination. If Jews have an unbreakable “historical connection,” what about Palestinians’ indigenous ties? It’s selective human rights advocacy.
• Harsh verdict: This is hypocritical whataboutism. It demands rights for one group while minimising others’, turning “antisemitism” into a get-out-of-criticism-free card. International law (e.g., UN resolutions on occupation) cuts both ways; ignoring that makes the whole thing ring hollow.

Overall: Why This Is “Hasbara” and Why It Fails

The tweets that we looked at are emblematic of hasbara. It uses emotional appeals to Jewish history and scripture to defend a modern political project. It smears critics to avoid substantive debate. Separating Zionism from Judaism is not “intellectually dishonest.” Insisting they are identical is dishonest when Jewish thought is so diverse. This approach doesn’t convince sceptics; it polarises, pushes away progressive Jews, and perpetuates cycles of accusation over dialogue.

If Jacobs wants to “explain,” he should engage directly with anti-Zionist Jewish voices. He must address historical nuances and policy critiques head-on, without the knee-jerk labels. As it stands, this is reductive propaganda that harms the fight against genuine antisemitism by crying wolf. Truth-seeking demands better, acknowledging the separations, debating the merits, and stopping the conflating of politics with prejudice.

Many thanks for reading… and thinking critically.

Click on this link for the last 100 website articles, blog long-reads, opinion pieces and myth-busters