Are Zionists and Anti-Zionists Arguing for the Sake of Heaven?

Key Findings:

This op-ed explores whether in some world, anti-Zionism could be considered not antisemitic, particularly in light of the October 7 Hamas attacks and the intense polarization among Jews over Israel’s existence and conduct. The author examines the historical and theological limits of legitimate disagreement within Judaism. Jewish debate has always had boundaries—especially when disagreement threatens Jewish peoplehood itself.

Jews have long celebrated internal disagreement as central to Jewish tradition — note, the Talmud, Rabbi Sacks, and examples like the schools of Hillel and Shammai. These debates, known as machloket l’shem shamayim (disagreements for the sake of Heaven), are respected when both sides are rooted in shared commitment to Judaism or the Jewish people. However, the op-ed points to the ancient figure of Elisha ben Abuya (Acher), a rabbi-turned-heretic, to illustrate that there is a threshold where dissent stops being internal and becomes opposition to Judaism itself.

The article uses this distinction to scrutinize Jewish anti-Zionist movements like Jewish Voice for Peace and intellectuals like Peter Beinart or Daniel Boyarin. While they claim to oppose Zionism in the name of Jewish ethics, the author argues that anti-Zionism that lacks a genuine concern for Jewish survival cannot be considered a “Jewish” argument — especially when it ignores or undermines Israel’s role as home to half the world’s Jews. Invoking Hillel’s famous maxim “If I am not for myself, who will be for me?” the author critiques anti-Zionists for embracing universalism at the expense of communal self-defense.

Jews like Spinoza, Rosa Luxemburg, and Hannah Arendt all rejected Jewish nationalism or peoplehood in favor of broader moral universality. For these thinkers, Jewish identity was often seen as a source of bias or even shame — views that the author contends continue today in some progressive Jewish circles.

Jewish anti-Zionism is not inherently antisemitic if it stems from “connected criticism”—a deep concern for Jewish peoplehood that seeks to improve, not dismantle, the community or its institutions. However, when criticism of Israel is motivated solely by external moral frameworks, political fashion, or distancing from one’s Jewish identity, it no longer qualifies as an internal Jewish argument. It becomes Other—outside the boundaries of legitimate Jewish debate—regardless of whether it comes from a Jew.