Opinion | Zionism Is the Jewish Quest for Normalcy—it Should Shine, Not Retire.

Nadine Epstein’s call to retire the word “Zionism” rests on two false assumptions. First, that the multifaceted nature of Zionism among Jews is a weakness, rather than—as Fania Oz-Salzberger has argued—the very source of its resilience. Second, Epstein fails to consider the word’s meaning for a vast constituency of stakeholders—Israel’s enemies—for whom “anti-Zionism” admits no ambiguity whatsoever: It calls for the dismantling of the State of Israel, for whatever reason and by whatever means.

Consider the scale. My research, described in my book Coexistence and Other Fighting Words, demonstrates that for the vast majority of the world’s two billion Muslims, Israel’s elimination is a foundational objective, regardless of the position of their governments. Meanwhile, the number of Jews engaged in debating Zionism is measured in the mere millions. It is therefore essential to name this vast anti-Zionist population—and to distinguish it clearly from those, far fewer in number, who are prepared to accept Israel’s coexistence, side by side with a Palestinian state.

In the past 25 years, I have studied and engaged with vast numbers of Israel’s would-be dismantlers, and I have coined the term “Zionophobia” to capture what I see as a racist, obsessive, irrational and openly eliminationist worldview, with unmistakable genocidal implications. “Zionophobia” differs from “anti-Zionism” in a crucial respect: The latter can denote a political position—however misguided—about the character or policies of a state or a movement; the former describes a categorical objection to the very existence of a Jewish state, independent of borders, governments or policies. It is not a critique of behavior but a rejection of being.

A few things I have learned through my frequent use of the term Zionophobia in debates, dialogues and writing. First, it shifts the frame of discourse—from debating Israel’s policies to the root cause of the conflict: the denial of Israelis’ basic rights as a nation. Second, calling someone a “Zionophobe” (as with calling someone a racist) restores moral symmetry to the exchange and dispels the impression that being on the defensive amounts to a tacit admission of guilt. Third, it enables a direct, disarming response: “Don’t tell me you’re a Zionophobe—are you? That would imply that you are a racist, even a genocidal one—and you seem like a decent fellow.”

Finally, the term Zionophobe has a near-magical effect on those Jews who, in pursuit of social acceptance, have sold their souls to Zionophobic narratives. Those Jews—whom I think of as “Jews of discomfort”—are beginning to awaken to the realization that the pound of flesh they have given to pacify their creditors is one pound too many—and that those creditors are not models of virtue, as they claim, but harbor moral pathologies and are guilty of genocidal bigotry.

It is worth noting a striking asymmetry. The very ambiguities that lead Epstein to declare the word “Zionism” obsolete vanish when one turns to its negative—“anti-Zionism,” or more precisely, Zionophobia. Epstein’s discomfort with the word “Zionism” stems partly from the multiplicity of meanings the term evokes among her audiences, and partly from the spectacular success of the campaign to contaminate the term with slurs—ranging from “baby-killing” to “apartheid” to “genocide.” Yet this ambiguity disappears when we examine the opposing term. Zionophobia, as defined above, admits no such multiplicity. Its meaning is stark, consistent and revealing.

That clarity, in turn, restores the effectiveness of the word “Zionism.” Once the slurs are traced back to their ideological source, what emerges is a crystal-clear understanding of Zionism—not as a bundle of contested policies, but as a simple claim: that the Jewish people, like all peoples, are entitled to sovereign self-determination.

In other words, when we follow the argument in the negative direction, we uncover the true meaning of Zionism as a universal principle: Zionism is the Jewish quest for normalcy. In today’s constellation of nation-states, a stateless minority is an oddity; it may be tolerated, protected, respected, even admired—but not normal.

From this it follows that no Jew can be truly equal in the family of man so long as Israel does not stand equal in the family of nations—a harsh conclusion for Jews of discomfort, and a difficult one to convey if we discard the word “Zionism.”

[This piece is a response to Nadine Epstein’s essay “The Word Zionism Is Dead.” For all responses, click here.]

Judea Pearl is the Chancellor’s Professor of Computer Science and Statistics at the University of California, Los Angeles, and father of slain Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl. He is the author of The Book of Why: The New Science of Cause and Effect; I Am Jewish: Personal Reflections Inspired by the Last Words of Daniel Pearl; and Coexistence and Other Fighting Words.