The Journeys and Destinations of Young Jewish Anti-Zionists

Key Findings:

• Most participants did not begin with an ideological rejection of Zionism. Many described childhoods, educations, or communal lives in which Israel was central, including experiences with Jewish camps, Birthright, Israel programs, day schools, synagogues, and Jewish communal work.

• Participants generally described their anti-Zionism as the result of a journey of alienation, shaped by experiences with Israel, Palestinians, Israeli institutions, and American Jewish communal responses to Israel. The report emphasizes that many participants saw their views as a response to the behavior of Jewish Israelis and Jewish Americans, not simply as an imported ideology.

• Nearly all participants had come to view Palestinian suffering not as a correctable flaw in Zionism, but as an inherent feature of the Zionist project. The report says participants commonly used language such as settler-colonialism, genocide, nationalism, and Jewish supremacy.

• The researchers found that several common assumptions about young Jewish anti-Zionists did not fit the participants they interviewed. Many were knowledgeable about Judaism, Zionism, and Israel; many cared deeply about Jewish community and the Jewish people; and several had experienced discomfort or antisemitism in non-Jewish progressive spaces rather than simply seeking acceptance there.

• At the same time, the report confirms that participants largely saw Israel as morally wrong both “in practice and in theory,” and many had participated in anti-Israel demonstrations since October 7.

• A central finding is that the hurt is mutual. Zionist communities often experience anti-Zionist actions as provocative or disloyal, while anti-Zionist Jews often experience mainstream Jewish symbols and practices — such as Israeli flags in synagogues, IDF fundraising, or Israeli soldiers visiting Jewish schools — as equally provocative and exclusionary.

• The report distinguishes between studying anti-Zionists’ “journey” and their “destination.” Focusing on the journey suggests possible educational or relational interventions before alienation hardens. Focusing on the destination may lead communities, especially in wartime, to prioritize boundaries, loyalty, and “strengthening the core.”

• The authors argue that the communal “problem” can be defined in three different ways: strengthening a coherent pro-Israel community, educating Jews toward stronger connection with Israel, or holding together a fractured Jewish community across deep ideological disagreement. Each path has tradeoffs.

• Most participants said dialogue with Zionists could be possible and worthwhile, but only under certain conditions: anti-Zionists must be explicitly welcomed, dialogue cannot be framed as persuasion or debate, and power imbalances within Jewish communal institutions must be acknowledged.

• The report recommends healthy argument rather than debate or consensus-building. Its preferred model emphasizes learning, growth, and connection without requiring either side to change its position. The authors argue that Jewish communities may not yet know how to resolve the Zionist/anti-Zionist divide, but should keep talking and “hold” the disagreement rather than assume it can be quickly solved.