What arguments do scholars make that Zionism is or is not a form of racial supremacy?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Scholars are sharply divided: some argue Zionism is a form of racial supremacy because they read its politics and institutions as settler‑colonial or privileging Jewish national status over non‑Jews (see academic journals and activist scholarship) [1] [2] [3]. Other scholars and commentators reject that label, stressing Zionism’s origins as a national‑liberation response to antisemitism and noting repudiations of the UN’s 1975 “Zionism is racism” resolution and voices that define Zionism as non‑racial nationalism [4] [5] [6].
1. What “Zionism is racism” meant politically — and why it still matters
The UN General Assembly’s 1975 Resolution 3379 declared “Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination,” a vote that passed 72–35 with 32 abstentions and was later revoked in 1991 [4]. That resolution framed Zionism in the language of anti‑colonial struggles of the 1970s and linked it rhetorically to apartheid and settler‑colonialism, shaping subsequent scholarly and activist debates about whether Zionism’s objectives and practices are inherently racial [1] [4].
2. Arguments by scholars who say Zionism functions as racial supremacy
A body of scholarship and activist writing treats Zionism as a settler‑colonial project that produces racial hierarchies: authors apply frameworks like “racial regimes” or “white European Jewish supremacy” to argue Zionist institutions have turned land and law into property privileging Jewish status and marginalizing Palestinians [2] [3]. Scholars and movements tied to Palestinian liberation have emphasized historical policies of segregation, laws and practices that differentiate rights by national or ethno‑religious identity, and intellectual lineages that compare Zionist practices to apartheid and colonialism [1] [2] [3].
3. Arguments by scholars who reject the racial‑supremacy label
Other scholars and commentators insist Zionism is a national‑liberation movement responding to centuries of antisemitism; they note Zionist ideology has defined Jewishness inclusively (by religion or conversion) and argue the 1975 UN resolution was motivated by Cold War and geopolitical agendas rather than purely legal analysis of racism [4] [7] [5]. Analysts stress heterogeneity within Zionism and point to liberal, democratic strands that explicitly endorse equality and reject racial hierarchies [6] [8].
4. Middle‑ground and methodological disagreements in the scholarship
Many academic disputes turn on definitions and methods: is “racism” used as a descriptive category of institutions and policy, a moral judgement, or a legal finding under international conventions? Some legal and international‑law scholars trace debates through Resolution 3379, apartheid discourse, and CERD negotiations; others prioritize historical intentions of early Zionist thinkers or contemporary constitutional commitments to equality [4] [9] [10]. These divergent starting points produce sharply different answers about whether Zionism amounts to “racial supremacy” [10] [6].
5. Politics, provenance and implicit agendas in the debate
The debate is layered with political stakes. Critics point out Soviet and non‑aligned states used anti‑Zionist language as Cold War leverage and anti‑colonial solidarity, while defenders argue some left‑wing and anti‑imperial currents adopt anti‑Zionist frames that conflate critique of policy with delegitimization of Jewish self‑determination [7] [11] [12]. Conversely, scholars and activists who call Zionism racist often tie their analysis to broader anti‑colonial and anti‑white‑supremacy projects; their explicit aim is political transformation of the Israeli‑Palestinian order [1] [3].
6. What evidence scholars commonly use — and what reporting does not cover
Proponents of the racial‑supremacy diagnosis cite laws, settlement policy, historical accounts of land expropriation, and comparative frameworks (apartheid, settler‑colonialism) [2] [3]. Defenders cite Zionism’s declared goals, inclusive definitions of Jewish identity, and revocation of the UN’s 1975 resolution as evidence it is not a racial doctrine [4] [6]. Available sources do not mention a single, universally accepted empirical metric that settles the question across all varieties of Zionism and time periods.
7. Bottom line for readers
Scholarly opinion breaks along analytical and political lines: some treat Zionism as inherently tied to racialized domination and settler‑colonial power [2] [3], while others treat it as a nationalist response to Jewish persecution and reject the label of racial supremacy [4] [6]. Any assessment must specify which definition of Zionism, which historical period, and which criteria for “racism” are being used — those choices determine the conclusion as much as the empirical evidence [10] [1].