By declaring that anti-Zionism is antisemitism, Mark Carney is criminalizing those protesting the Gaza genocide

Canada’s criminalization of anti-Zionism is an act of political obedience to Israel — a nation with a decades-long history of violating international laws and the basic tenets of humanity.
 
By Fareed Khan
A version of this article is available on Substack.

Last week, the Canadian government quietly crossed a political and moral Rubicon. In its latest report on antisemitism, Public Safety Canada explicitly declared that anti‑Zionism is a form of antisemitism. With one sentence, the Mark Carney government told millions of Canadians — Palestinians, Jews, Muslims, Christians, human rights advocates, academics, and ordinary citizens — that their opposition to Israel’s three‑year‑long genocide in Gaza is not political speech, but criminalized hate.

This is not simply a dispute about the definition of a word or phrase. It is a state‑engineered distortion with profound consequences that will endanger people. By equating anti‑Zionism with antisemitism, the federal government is doing three things simultaneously:

• Criminalizing legitimate political criticism of a foreign state;
  
• Demonstrating ideological obedience to the Israeli government; and
  
• Making life more dangerous for Jews in Canada by erasing the distinction between a political ideology and Jewish identity.

This is not exaggeration. It is a sober assessment of what will happen as a government transforms legitimate political critique into racial hatred — and does so in the middle of an internationally documented genocide which is now entering its fourth year.

Anti‑Zionism is not hatred of Jews

Zionism is a supremacist political ideology developed in the late 19th century — roughly 125 years old — advocating for the ethnic cleansing of historic Palestine in order to create a Jewish state. Like any political ideology, it is subject to debate, criticism, and rejection. Anti‑Zionism is precisely that — opposition to a political ideology not hostility toward a people.

To oppose Zionism is no different than opposing communism, fascism, white supremacy, or any other ethno‑nationalist ideology. Political ideologies are not sacred, and they are not immune from critique.

Jewish scholars, rabbis, and activists have said this for decades. In the present day groups like Jewish Voice for Peace, Independent Jewish Voices Canada, and countless academics have repeatedly affirmed that anti‑Zionism is not antisemitism, and that conflating the two is both intellectually dishonest and politically dangerous. 

Historically, some of the most influential Jewish thinkers, writers, rabbis, Holocaust survivors, and resistance fighters have opposed Zionism. Their objections were not rooted in self‑hatred or denial of Jewish identity, but in a profound ethical conviction that nationalism built on exclusion, displacement, or religious exceptionalism would endanger both Jews and Palestinians. Sigmund Freud condemned the “baseless fanaticism” driving Zionist claims in Palestine; Albert Einstein rejected the very idea of a Jewish state; Erich Fromm argued that ancient territorial claims could never justify modern political sovereignty; Primo Levi warned that similar to Nazi attitudes towards Jews, Israel was creating its own oppressed class in Palestinians; Marek Edelman, hero of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, wrote directly to Palestinian resistance fighters in solidarity; and political philosopher Hannah Arendt cautioned that Zionism relied on antisemitism as its political engine. These were not marginal voices — they were among the most important Jewish intellectuals of the 20th  century, united in their belief that Zionism was a political ideology, not a religious destiny, and that its implementation would produce endless violence.

Their warnings continued into the modern era. I.F. Stone argued that Israel’s ethnonationalism created “moral schizophrenia” for Jews worldwide; Noam Chomsky described Israel’s occupation as worse than apartheid; Isaac Asimov rejected Zionism as a form of ethnic exceptionalism; and British actress Miriam Margolyes, Israeli activist Uri Avnery, American historian Gabriel Kolko, and Rabbi Michael Lerner all publicly denounced Zionism or Israel’s policies as morally indefensible. These figures demonstrated a simple truth: Zionism has always been outside of Judaism and was a danger to Jewish safety.

Even the Israeli government itself acknowledges that Zionism is a political ideology — not a religious identity — when it describes Israel as a “Jewish and democratic state” founded on Zionist principles. If Zionism is a political ideology, then opposing it is political speech. Full stop.

Canada is doing Israel’s bidding

One thing must be clearly understood. This redefinition did not emerge organically from Canadian civil society. It is the result of years of lobbying by agents of the Israeli government whose efforts have resulted in the Canadian government mirroring Israel’s long‑standing strategy of weaponizing accusations of antisemitism to silence criticism of its policies, especially its brutal decades-long oppression of Palestinians.

The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism — aggressively promoted by Israel and its lobby organizations in the West — has been widely criticized by scholars, civil liberties groups, and even the definition’s own drafters for chilling free expression and conflating political critique with hate speech.

Public Safety Canada’s adoption of the most extreme interpretation of IHRA is not a neutral act. It is an act of political obedience to a foreign power that has a decades-long history of violating international laws and the basic tenets of humanity. It is the Canadian government aligning itself with the Israeli government’s propaganda framework at the precise moment Israel is committing mass atrocities documented by the United Nations, and confirmed by Amnesty International; Human Rights Watch; Israeli human rights group B’Tselem; Physicians for Human Rights Israel; Doctors Without Borders; Oxfam; Save the Children; the International Federation of Human Rights; the International Association of Genocide Scholars; leading Israeli Holocaust scholars Omer Bartov, Amos Goldberg, Daniel Blatman, Raz Segal, and Shmuel Lederman; as well as the 30 nations supporting South Africa’s genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice.

When a government adopts the ideological framing of a foreign state and uses it to police domestic political dissent, it ceases to be an independent actor. It becomes a vassal — a subordinate power executing the political will of another nation.

That is what the Carney government has done.

Redefinition makes life more dangerous for Jews

Conflating anti‑Zionism with antisemitism does not protect Jewish Canadians. It endangers them.

Real antisemitism — the kind that fuels white supremacist violence, neo‑Nazi organizing, and far‑right extremism — is rising across North America. Jewish communities need clarity, precision, and vigilance to confront this threat. But when the government declares that opposing a political ideology is equivalent to hating Jews, it blurs the line between legitimate political critique and actual antisemitism. This confusion makes it harder to identify real threats, and reinforces the dangerous lie that all Jews are responsible for Israel’s actions — a core antisemitic trope.

Progressive Jewish organizations have warned repeatedly that weaponizing antisemitism for political ends increases hostility toward Jews by making them appear as agents of a foreign government. By adopting Israel’s preferred framing, the Canadian government has made Jewish Canadians less safe, not more.

Criminalizing anti‑Zionism criminalizes criticism of Israel

Israel is a state founded on Zionist ideology, something the it’s government has proclaimed for years. If anti‑Zionism is antisemitism, then criticizing Israel’s policies — its military actions, its occupation, its apartheid system, its brutality towards Palestinians — becomes suspect, and potentially criminal. This is not theoretical. Public Safety Canada’s report is intended to shape policing, surveillance, and security policy. It is a directive to law enforcement.

The Carney government’s approach to antisemitism means that:

• Protesting Israel’s genocide could be treated as hate speech;
• Calling for sanctions on Israel could be labeled antisemitic;
• Advocating for Palestinian human rights could be investigated as extremism;
• Jewish anti‑Zionists could be targeted as dangerous;
• Palestinian Canadians could be criminalized for expressing their own history.

This is the architecture of authoritarianism and fascism — redefine legitimate dissent as a crime, then police it, and prosecute those whose words and actions don’t align with political agendas.

Mark Carney is violating the Charter of Rights

Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees freedom of expression, conscience, assembly, and political belief. Equating anti‑Zionism — a political protest movement — with antisemitism violates all of these rights and shows how little Mark Carney’s government cares about defending human rights. Legal scholars have already warned that adopting IHRA’s conflation of anti‑Zionism with hate speech would breach Canadians’ Charter protections, and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association has called the definition “overbroad, vague, and open to abuse.”

By embracing the most extreme interpretation of IHRA, the Carney government is not merely chilling political speech — it is weaponizing state power to suppress it. The Supreme Court of Canada has repeatedly affirmed that political expression lies at the core of Charter protection, yet Ottawa is now treating dissent as extremism and criticism of a foreign government as hate. This is the kind of state behaviour seen in Russia or China, where governments collapse political disagreement into criminalized disloyalty. The fact that it is happening in Canada signals a dangerous authoritarian drift, one where constitutional rights become expendable whenever they inconvenience those in power. When a government knowingly violates constitutional rights, it is not making a policy error — it is committing an abuse of power.

Carney cares little about Canadians’ rights or Palestinian lives

Mark Carney’s government has demonstrated that it does not give a damn about the fundamental rights of millions of Canadians. It does not care about the Palestinians being slaughtered in Gaza. It does not care about the crimes against humanity being committed by Israel with Canadian complicity — through arms exports, diplomatic cover, and political obedience.

Instead, Canada has chosen to criminalize dissent at home, redefine antisemitism to serve a foreign government’s interests, and endanger both Palestinians and Jews in Canada. This is not leadership. It is capitulation to a foreign power. It is moral cowardice. It is complicity in genocide.

And Canadians must reject it — loudly, unapologetically, and relentlessly.

© 2026 The View From Here. © 2026 Fareed Khan. All Rights Reserved.

Fighting Zionism and criticizing Israel is not antisemitic

Antisemitism is evil, as is anti-Palestinian racism. But the Holocaust must never be used to silence critics of Zionism or the criminal actions of Israel, and take away the voice of Palestinians or their allies.

By Fareed Khan
A version of this article can be found on Substack.

This must be said again and again until it is heard: opposing Zionism or criticizing Israel—its policies, actions, or ideology—is not antisemitism, which is the hatred of Jews.

In any morally serious discussion of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, clarity of language is not optional. It is essential. Conflating legitimate opposition to a political ideology or state policies with hatred of an entire people or faith is a profound disservice to truth, justice, and the safety of everyone involved. Such deliberate blurring poisons discourse and escalates real dangers on all sides.

Let’s be clear. Antisemitism is a vile, ancient hatred that targets Jews solely for being Jews. It has taken the form of hostility, discrimination, exclusion, and violence against Jewish individuals, communities, synagogues, and the Jewish faith itself. Originating in Europe, its roots run deep from medieval times, through the Renaissance and into the modern era, where entrenched prejudices among Christian and Caucasian populations cast Jews as perpetual outsiders and scapegoats. Jews were not only pushed into an underclass—they were blamed for plagues, famines, and natural disasters, triggering waves of pogroms across the continent. This long history of demonization culminated in the industrialized genocide of the Holocaust, an unparalleled crime against humanity that must never be trivialized or exploited.  

Anti‑Zionism, by contrast, is opposition to Zionism—a supremacist political ideology created roughly 125 years ago that elevates Jewish national claims above those of others and served as the ideological foundation for Israel’s establishment on Palestinian land. Criticizing the policies of the Israeli government—including its illegal occupation of Palestinian territory, illegal settlement expansion, its brutal treatment of Palestinians, its actions in Gaza, and the dehumanizing rhetoric of its politicians—is a legitimate exercise in political discourse, no different from critiquing the conduct of the United States, China, its leaders or those of any other nation. Equating criticism of Zionism or Israel with antisemitism distorts reality, shields those responsible for Israel’s crimes from accountability, and undermines genuine efforts to combat actual hate and racism.  

Zionism emerged in the late 19th century amid rising European antisemitism and Jewish aspirations for self‑determination. Theodor Herzl, an Austrian‑Jewish journalist, lawyer and atheist, is widely regarded as its founder. Shocked by events like the Dreyfus Affair—a scandal in France where a Jewish artillery officer was framed for treason—Herzl published Der Judenstaat (The Jew State) in 1896, arguing for a sovereign Jewish homeland as a solution to perpetual persecution. The First Zionist Congress in 1897 formalized the movement’s goal—establishing a home for the Jewish people of Europe secured by public law. Palestine was only one of several locations considered. Others included British colonial Uganda, Argentina, Dutch Guiana, Cyprus, and Sinai, before Britain’s Balfour Declaration offered support for a Jewish “national home” in Palestine without any consultations with the indigenous peoples of that territory.  

While rooted in Jewish historical and religious connections to the land, Zionism was fundamentally a modern ethno‑nationalist political project shaped by European nationalism movements. It is not synonymous with Judaism or Jewish identity, and its earliest proponents, like Herzl, were atheists. Many Jews historically opposed it on religious, cultural, or political grounds, and today Jewish voices span the full spectrum—from ardent Zionists to passionate anti‑Zionists.  

Antisemitism and anti‑Zionism are distinct, and efforts to conflate them amount to propaganda and misinformation. Antisemitism essentializes and demonizes Jews collectively. Anti‑Zionism challenges a specific political ideology—one many consider racist—and its implementation. One can oppose Italian fascism without being anti‑Italian, or criticize Saudi theocracy without hating Muslims. Similarly, legitimate criticism of Israeli policies—such as settlement expansion in the West Bank, the siege of Gaza, or Israel’s repeated violations of humanitarian and human rights law for decades—does not inherently target Jews, especially given that the majority of Zionists worldwide are Christian. And while the controversial International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism has been adopted as the official definition of antisemitism by 40 countries, the man who drafted it Kenneth Stern, says it is dangerous because it is being weaponized by Zionists to shut down criticism of Zionism and Israel, and oppose support Palestinians’ struggle for freedom from Israeli oppression.  

Palestinians and their allies who resist Zionism are not inherently antisemitic. For Palestinians, Zionism is not an abstract philosophy but the ideology underpinning their dispossession and decades of brutal occupation. The 1948 Nakba (“catastrophe”) saw over 750,000 Palestinians—roughly 75% of the population—displaced, and tens of thousands killed in a campaign of ethnic cleansing by terrorist Zionist miltias. Subsequent decades of occupation, illegal Jewish‑only settlements, and military rule have entrenched a system that many human rights organizations, including Israel’s B’Tselem, describe as apartheid or as involving severe violations of international law and the UN Charter.  

Branding Palestinian resistance (or the actions of their allies) as antisemitism effectively tells Palestinians they may only narrate their suffering in terms acceptable to their oppressors. It demands they mourn Jewish trauma while muting their own lived experience of displacement, home demolitions, dispossession, torture, and murder by Israeli forces and settlers. No other people have been historically required to sanitize their narrative of subjugation to spare the feelings of those who are subjugating them.  

Human rights advocates face a similar bind. Policies may be critiqued cautiously, but the ideological foundation—Zionism as embodied in the Israeli state—often becomes off‑limits. In Canada, for example, political leaders have sometimes framed robust criticism of Israel as unacceptable, even as the government maintains arms sales and diplomatic support to a genocidal state, raising questions of complicity in alleged violations of international law. This is not democracy but enforced orthodoxy. A genuine commitment to human rights requires scrutinizing all parties without sacred cows.  

A serious conversation must hold multiple truths simultaneously. All life is sacred. Jewish lives matter, and Palestinian lives matter equally. Antisemitism is unequivocally evil, as are apartheid systems and anti‑Palestinian racism. Jewish historical trauma, including the Holocaust, is profound and must never be minimized, yet it does not justify or erase Palestinian dispossession, ethnic cleansing, or what genocide and Holocaust experts—including Israeli Jewish academics—have identified as genocidal acts in Gaza. Organizations including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, B’Tselem, the International Association of Genocide Scholars, and Israeli Holocaust scholars have documented patterns of domination, collective punishment, and intent to destroy Palestinian life in Gaza and the West Bank in whole or in part, as defined under the Genocide Convention.  

B’Tselem has explicitly described a single regime of Jewish supremacy from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have also labelled it apartheid and, in Gaza, genocide—a systematic crime against humanity defined by domination, oppression, and mass murder in an attempt to wipe out Palestinians as a people and a society. Extensive reports document how Israeli settlement policies fragment Palestinian territory, how separate and unequal legal systems entrench discrimination, and how Israel’s response to the October 7, 2023 Hamas attack unleashed unprecedented civilian casualties, widespread destruction, and a devastating humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Meanwhile, the Knesset has repeatedly passed motions rejecting any Palestinian state, while Netanyahu’s government prioritizes perpetual control and security dominance over negotiation or any agreement establishing a Palestinian state along the internationally recognized 1967 borders.  

Prominent voices—including Israeli scholars who lost family in the Holocaust—warn that silencing criticism of Israel betrays core Jewish ethical traditions and, in a tragic reversal, echoes the very historical traumas Jews endured. They emphasize that Palestinian freedom does not threaten Jewish security, and that a just political resolution—whether two states, a binational framework, or a confederation—can protect both peoples without one dominating the other. Claims that Palestinian self‑determination inherently endangers Jews often functions as a justification for perpetual occupation, yet no people’s safety can ever rest on another’s subjugation or denial of dignity. History makes this plain: oppression breeds resistance, and unresolved injustice fuels recurring cycles of violence. Today’s leaders would do well to remember President John F. Kennedy’s warning that “those who make peaceful change impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”  

Conflating anti‑Zionism with antisemitism does not protect Jews. It protects the Israeli government and its political and military leaders from accountability and fuels real antisemitism by reinforcing the false notion that Jewish identity is inseparable from Israel and its actions. This alienates potential allies, stifles honest dialogue, and foments hatred among those who conflate Jewishness with the state of Israel.  

Jews have long debated Zionism and the colonization of Palestine internally, with some of the fiercest anti‑Zionists being Jews themselves, including Albert Einstein and Hannah Arendt. Forcing a monolithic equation ignores this diversity and denies Palestinians the right to oppose the ideology that displaced them and has oppressed them since the day Israel was created.  

The path forward demands clarity, not blurred language that turns legitimate political criticism into “hate speech.” It requires speaking truth to power on all sides, rejecting collective punishment and expansionism, and insisting on upholding universal human rights standards. Palestinians have the right under international law to resist occupation, including through armed struggle, and to seek self‑determination without being smeared as racists. Jews have the right to security without using it as license for the indefinite subjugation of the Indigenous people of historic Palestine.  

Ultimately, enforcing orthodoxy around Zionism and criticism of Israel hinders peace. True security for Israelis and justice for Palestinians are intertwined. Recognizing that opposing a 20th‑century political project is not equivalent to hating Jews or Judaism opens space for empathy, historical reckoning, and coexistence. Democracy thrives on debate, not taboos, and suppressing criticism of any ideology or state policy in the name of protecting a people risks moral contradiction and perpetuates tragedy. All parties must be held to the same standards of humanity, law, and ethics. Only then can the sacredness of all lives guide us toward a future beyond endless conflict.  

© 2026 The View From Here. © 2026 Fareed Khan. All Rights Reserved.