The Contested Legacy of Zionism: From Liberation to Occupation, a New Generation Questions the Narrative
A recent confrontation at the Ca’ Foscari University of Venice between a Democratic party deputy and students has ignited a broader debate, not about how the discussion unfolded, but about the deeply political substance of Zionism itself. The incident, framed by some as a matter of procedural disagreement, underscores a growing challenge to the prevailing discourse surrounding Israel and its founding ideology.
The core of the dispute, as articulated by those involved, isn’t a rejection of Jewish identity or history. Rather, it’s a critical examination of the political implications of Zionism, particularly in light of the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict.Emanuele Fiano, president of Left for Israel, has consistently maintained that equating Zionism with racism is “historically wrong and morally unacceptable,” framing the movement as a national project akin to the Risorgimento and other European movements of national self-determination – a quest for a homeland for the Jewish people.
However, this narrative, critics argue, obscures a essential contradiction: the realization of that homeland came at the expense of another people. The question of whether it is indeed legitimate to oppose Zionism, thus, becomes unavoidable.A key tenet of the critique rests on the premise that any national project built on the exclusion of existing inhabitants carries an inherent moral flaw. Zionism,initially conceived as a haven from persecution,evolved into a form of colonization,a point underscored by the now-infamous formulation – “a land without people for a people without land” – which effectively erased the Palestinian presence.
Historians such as Ilan Pappé, Benny Morris, and Tom Segev have meticulously documented the expulsions and ethnic reorganization that accompanied the birth of the State of Israel. Earlier thinkers, including Hannah Arendt and Martin Buber, cautioned that a state founded on national homogeneity could not fully embody democratic principles.
Zionism, from its inception, contained competing currents: a socialist and secular vision of equality, and a religious imperative rooted in the fulfillment of a divine promise. Following the 1967 Six-Day War and the subsequent occupation of Palestinian territories, the religious strain gained ascendancy, exposing the inherent tensions within the ideology. Today, “messianic Zionism” – which grounds Israel’s legitimacy in religious claims to the land – wields significant political influence. The Religious Zionism Party, holding seven seats in the knesset, actively shapes Israeli policy, representing the political manifestation of a theological conviction: land as an inalienable right. This initial project, therefore, has morphed into a system of territorial dominion, where occupation and settlements are not deviations, but logical extensions of the original premise – the freedom of one group achieved through the dispossession of another.
Fiano, critics contend, presents an idealized vision of Zionism, harking back to the era of kibbutzim and socialist ideals. But that era has passed. Contemporary Zionism, they argue, has become a state ideology that justifies asymmetry and fosters fear.Those who challenge it, like the students at Ca’ Foscari, are not denying the Holocaust or Jewish suffering; they are rejecting the political instrumentalization of these tragedies to justify the ongoing oppression of the Palestinian people. Fiano, in this view, overlooks the complex historical context and the emerging significance of the tragedy unfolding in Gaza.
These young critics should not be dismissed as antisemitic, but rather recognized as a new critical conscience. They are demanding a return to worldwide values of “liberation” and “justice.”
The role of the university, it is indeed argued, is not to shield ideologies from scrutiny, but to foster critical engagement with history. And history,today,reveals that a movement born to liberate one people cannot continue to do so while simultaneously denying the freedom of another.
In the wake of the events in Gaza,there is an urgent need to re-evaluate and marginalize Zionism as a political ideology – not to erase Jewish memory,but to disentangle it from a project of domination. Only by separating Jewish identity from Zionist ideology can we begin to rebuild a framework for justice, coexistence, and peace, not as privileges reserved for one group, but as universal values accessible to all.
Worth a look
