A communications consultant was let go by the Jewish Federations of North America last week for saying something that a number of Jewish leaders and thinkers have been saying for years: Maybe Jews and supporters of Israel should be more tactical about using, and not using, the word “Zionism.”
Matthew Berger, who had been hired by the umbrella group to head a new strategic communications project, was speaking to members of JFNA’s Young Leadership Cabinet last Tuesday in Minneapolis about effective messaging about Israel. Among his recommendations, according to a slide he showed during the presentation, were “showcase diversity,” “focus on the common enemy” and “avoid ‘Zionism.’” (Quotes around Zionism included.)
The slide, shared with the conservative Jewish news service JNS by an unnamed attendee, was the focus of a JNS article on August 5th, in response, a JFNA spokesperson reaffirmed that the umbrella group is “proudly Zionist.”
JFNA ends contract with Project Halo consultant
“This slide was part of a discussion about what data shows to be effective messaging in today’s polarized political environment and should not be taken to imply anything else,” Niv Elis, JFNA’s associate vice president for external communications, told JNS.
Within hours of its publication, after the JNS story was shared on social media by various pro-Israel users, JFNA ended its contract with Berger, who had been hired to head Project Halo, a JFNA effort to help federation leaders “counter antisemitism and anti-Zionism” in their communications.
“The presentation at our National Young Leadership Cabinet Retreat was not prepared by Jewish Federations of North America, but by a Project Halo consultant, and does not represent our approach to Zionism,” according to a statement by JFNA that Wednesday morning.
Elis declined to comment to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency beyond sharing the statement.
In an interview with JTA on Tuesday, Berger, who worked as a reporter for JTA from 2000-2006, declined to comment on either JFNA or the presentation in Minnesota.
But he did share his thoughts on the uses, and misunderstandings, surrounding the word “Zionism.”
“My purpose as a communicator is to use messaging to advance a goal. If the goal is to raise awareness of antisemitism and build allyship, then we have to understand the word ‘Zionism’ is being misconstrued,” said Berger, the former executive director of the Foundation to Combat Antisemitism. “And we can either spend our energy trying to define it and fix that or use language that people are going to understand to open doors to engagement.”
Jewish groups grapple with changing meaning of 'Zionism'
The controversy might suggest that Berger had somehow violated a Jewish communal taboo, when in fact numerous Jewish organizations and commentators who are emphatically Zionist are noting how the term itself is sowing confusion. Like Berger, they are not questioning the tenets of Zionism, the right of the Jewish people to self-determination in their historic homeland, but its rhetorical weight.
The Anti-Defamation League regularly tracks how “Zionist” is deployed as an antisemitic slur. The American Jewish Committee’s “Translate Hate” glossary notes how using “Zionism” and “Judaism” interchangeably “blames Jewish people for the actions and policies of the State of Israel.”
“‘Zionist’ is increasingly used as a defamatory code word for Jews, in order to disguise antisemitic narratives,” according to “Reclaim Zionism,” a website launched earlier this year by the American Zionist Movement coalition. “This deliberate or unconscious distortion fuels hostility and creates a social climate in which Jewish life is questioned or threatened.”
The distortion of the words by Israel’s enemies is not the only challenge organizations are seeing. JFNA’s own polling suggests that a Jewish majority that nonetheless wholeheartedly supports Israel avoids using the term to describe their own beliefs. A February JFNA poll found that only 37% of American Jews describe themselves as Zionists. Yet 88% said Israel has the right to exist as a Jewish, democratic state. Only a relatively small percentage of respondents identified as anti-Zionist.
The study, a JFNA official explained at the time, suggested reasons why Jews might hesitate to use the term “Zionist”: They are unclear on its definition, or they think it implies blanket support for Israeli government policies and actions they don’t agree with.
“If we misread the trend about ‘Zionism’ to mean that large numbers of Jews, especially young Jews, are turning against the existence of Israel itself, we will draw the wrong conclusions and take the wrong actions,” Mimi Kravetz, JFNA’s chief impact officer, wrote in a JTA essay timed to the poll’s release. In the same essay, she acknowledged that the word has undergone “definition creep.”
Project Halo previously acknowledged confusion over Zionism
A similar interpretation of the poll results was also included in a Project Halo “backgrounder” in February, providing communications guidance for Jewish organization staff when speaking with Jewish and non-Jewish audiences.
“The term ‘Zionism’ is often used to mean different things depending on the speaker, fueling confusion and misunderstanding,” according to the backgrounder.
As Berger did in Minneapolis, Project Halo recommended that Jewish professionals “focus on using terms that have broader appeal among Jewish audiences.” When using “Zionism,” meanwhile, the backgrounder recommended that speakers define it, as a movement for self-determination, a Jewish democratic state and Israel’s right to exist that does not imply support for the sitting government.
Matthew Berger, president and CEO of Mashber Strategies, was hired by the Jewish Federations of North America to help guide staff and lay leaders in effective communications strategies around Israel. (Courtesy Mashber)
Should Jewish groups retire or reclaim 'Zionism'?
Beyond confusion over the meaning of “Zionism,” some academics and activists suggest that the word itself has outlived its usefulness.
It’s not just that Israel’s enemies use the term “Zionist” as a slur; rather, as Judaica scholars Alanna E. Cooper and Sharona Hoffman argued in a JTA essay, the word confuses a historic and political movement with the undeniable fact that Israel is an established country.
“[B]y continuing to use the terms ‘Zionist’ and ‘Zionism’ we undermine Israel’s normalization,” the two wrote in 2024.
Outside of the academy, the performer and pro-Israel influencer Jonah Platt, whose mother Julie Platt chaired JFNA’s board of trustees from 2022 to 2025, also suggested that “it’s time to retire the word ‘Zionist.’”
The Zionist movement succeeded, he wrote in the Forward in April 2025. Israel exists. Why continue to use an aspirational term from the 19th century to describe Israel’s 21st-century reality, when it is too often defined by Israel’s detractors as “a racist, destructive ‘ideology’”?
“We no longer need a term to describe someone who believes a state of Israel should exist as the Jewish homeland,” he wrote. “Because a state of Israel, as the Jewish homeland, already exists. And it is not going anywhere.”
Defenders of the term, meanwhile, see suggestions for retiring or even de-emphasizing terms like “Zionism” as a capitulation to the enemies of Jews and Israel.
Responding to Cooper and Hoffman in a JTA essay, Zack Bodner, a founder of the pro-Israel Z3 Project, called retirement of the word “a mistake of epic proportions.”
“If we allow our enemies to turn Zionism into a dirty word, then that will pave the way for them to turn the entire Zionist enterprise into a dirty movement,” wrote Bodner.
Defenders argue for reclaiming the Zionist label
Like Zionism itself, attitudes toward the word defy easy political pigeon-holing. The bestselling Israeli historian Yuval Noah Harari, a fierce critic of the current Israeli government, is nonetheless an unapologetic defender of the word “Zionism” and “Zionist.”
“It’s important to emphasize and reclaim this word, which has been vilified,” he told The Atlantic on the one-year anniversary of the Oct. 7 attacks. His definition: Jews are a people; Jews have a right to self-determination; and Jews have a deep historical, cultural and spiritual connection to the land of Israel.
None of those propositions, he argues, requires denying Palestinian peoplehood or Palestinian self-determination.
Like Harari, many defenders of the term are eager to suggest that “Zionism” is not monolithic, and can contain a number of political ideologies and Jewish identities, from liberal supporters of a two-state solution to a nationalist proponent of the settler movement.
The American Zionist Movement, which has gone under its current name since 1993, notes on its “Reclaim Zionism” website that “not every position or group that identifies as Zionist or is labeled as such reflects our values.”
In an essay earlier this year explaining why he embraces the Zionist label, Kenneth L. Marcus, who litigates against antisemitism as head of the Louis D. Brandeis Center, explained that the word doesn’t have only one meaning. He described the various ways he considered himself a Zionist, including “religious,” “cultural” and “political.”
If that is the case, many have concluded, a term with so many competing meanings has lost its usefulness.
That appeared to be the communications problem Berger was trying to solve, in the face of some Jewish leaders who see any attempt to downplay “Zionism” as an abdication of Jewish identity or a surrender to the left.
“My perspective is not to shy away from supporting Israel as a Jewish democracy or the Jewish right to self-determination,” Berger told JTA. “Instead, I recommend people define Zionism in context and talk about their ‘support of Israel as a Jewish democratic state’ and the ‘right to self-determination’ – use those terms instead of relying on a shorthand that might mean something to you but might be heard differently than intended.”
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of JTA or its parent company, 70 Faces Media.