“Zionophobia” is a term that people should get used to using. It deserves to be amplified far and wide.
According to Wiktionary, “Zionophobia means hostility toward Zionism or toward people who identify as Zionists, often extending into prejudice against Jews when Zionism is treated as an inherent Jewish trait.”
Judea Pearl, a computer scientist (and father of Wall Street Journal journalist Daniel Pearl, who was murdered by al-Qaeda in 2002), has been trying to spread the word about this phrase, and it is indeed worth spreading. He argues that instead of trying to defend against the claim of being a Zionist, people ought to turn around and accuse that accuser of being a Zionophobe.
A new strategy
He argues that Jews and supporters of Israel have made a strategic error by constantly defending, denying, or softening their identification with Zionism. His contention is this: Instead of treating “Zionist” as a charge that must be refuted, it should be recognized for what it often is – a marker used by others to justify hostility and bigotry. When that happens, the correct response is not apology but identification of prejudice.
Words matter, and approach matters. By taking this tack, one can shift from a defensive posture to an offensive one. The power of naming this behavior has been proven out. Terms like “Islamophobia” and “homophobia” have forced society to distinguish between critique and hostility. Once named, bigotry became harder to hide under the guise of virtue.
Zionophobia deserves the same treatment. It exposes how “anti-Zionism” frequently operates not as principled dissent but as a socially acceptable vehicle for antisemitism. The word “Zionist” has replaced the word “Jew.” When Jewish individuals, or even unrelated commercial brands, are targeted simply for their perceived Zionist affiliation, the line has already been crossed.
The boycott against 'Zionists'
A recent boycott campaign circulating online illustrates the point clearly. The graphic places the word “Boycott” in bold red letters above an image of Bernard Arnault, CEO of LVMH, surrounded by dozens of luxury brands. At the center of the image, beneath his name, is a single label: “Zionist.” The explicit message is unmistakable. Support for Israel – or even perceived association with it – is treated as a moral stain. This is used to justify collective punishment of businesses, brands, and individuals.
No other national movement is treated this way. No one organizes mass boycotts of global companies because their leadership supports Chinese sovereignty, Irish nationalism, or Palestinian self-determination. Only Zionism is singled out as uniquely disqualifying. That is Zionophobia in its purest form.
The message is simple: Association with Jewish self-determination renders a person or company illegitimate. It harkens back to the “Juden” signs during the Nazi era.
Reclaiming 'Zionism'
Repeating the obvious, Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East, and disagreement is part of its strength. But denying the Jewish people the right to national self-determination – while affirming that right for every other group – is the problem.
The word “Zionism” has been weaponized, and it’s time to take the word back. Using the term “Zionophobia” is not about shutting down debate; it is about restoring moral clarity. It shifts the burden back where it belongs, forcing those who weaponize “Zionist” onto their back foot by implying the bigoted nature of their accusation.
Mr. Pearl has made it his mission to propagate this term, and he deserves to be commended. Zionophobia ought to be on the lips of every individual who is thrust into the Israel debate, and the term should be broadcast far and wide on social media and beyond.
The writer is the co-founder of a nonprofit technology company called Emissary4all, which is an app to organize people to move the needle on social media and beyond.