Israeli Historian Warns of Rising Anti‑Zionist Tide and Its Political Fallout

In a recent JNS TV episode titled “The War Against Zionism Is Exploding, and Jews Face a Dangerous Choice,” historian Gil Troy joined editor‑in‑chief Jonathan Tobin to trace the resurgence of anti‑Zionist rhetoric from its Cold‑War origins to today’s liberal discourse. The discussion, recorded on 8 October 2026, linked the United Nations “Zionism is racism” resolution of the 1960s to a new wave of “anti‑racist” ideology that, according to Troy, fuels antisemitic narratives about Israel. While the conversation covered a broad historical sweep, its core focus was the impact of this ideological shift on Israel’s security, its diplomatic standing, and the internal political dynamics that shape the upcoming election.

From the Soviet‑Era Resolution to Modern “Anti‑Racist” Campaigns

Gil Troy reminded viewers that the infamous “Zionism is racism” resolution was passed half a century ago by the Soviet Union and its Third World allies. He emphasized that the language of that resolution continues to echo in contemporary academic and media circles, where “anti‑racist” slogans are often deployed to criticize Israel. According to Troy, this revival is not a spontaneous phenomenon but a direct inheritance of Cold‑War propaganda, now repackaged by liberal scholars and pop‑culture figures who see themselves as champions of human rights.

The historian argued that the spread of this ideology has created a feedback loop: as more commentators adopt the anti‑Zionist framing, public opinion shifts, and political leaders feel pressured to distance themselves from Israel. Troy warned that this dynamic undermines both Israel’s international standing and the sense of security felt by American Jews, whose communities have long relied on a stable diplomatic relationship between Washington and Jerusalem.

In the JNS report, Troy highlighted that the modern “anti‑racist” narrative often includes antisemitic blood libels, accusing Israel of crimes that echo the most virulent forms of historical anti‑Jewish propaganda. He stressed that while the language may appear progressive, its underlying assumptions mirror the same demonisation that the 1960s resolution propagated.

The “Triple Double Cross” and Its Electoral Implications

Troy coined the term “triple double cross” to describe what he sees as a betrayal by liberals, feminists, and left‑wing activists who, after the Oct. 7 attacks, aligned themselves with the Palestinians despite the atrocities committed against Israelis. He argued that this alignment should have clarified the moral stakes of the conflict, yet instead it deepened divisions within the United States, particularly between the Democratic Party and Israel.

The historian warned that the “triple double cross” has political consequences beyond rhetoric. By siding with groups that perpetrated murder, rape, and kidnapping, these activists have, in Troy’s view, compromised the credibility of the liberal camp on issues of security and human rights. He suggested that this betrayal could erode the Democratic Party’s support among Jewish voters and moderate liberals who view Israel as a strategic ally.

According to Troy, the shift toward far‑left positions threatens the Democratic Party’s electoral prospects in upcoming cycles. He specifically mentioned Michigan Senate candidate Dr. Abdul El‑Sayed as an example of a figure whose platform embodies the far‑left agenda that could alienate key constituencies. Troy argued that the real danger to the party lies not only in its stance on Israel but also in the broader ideological drift that could jeopardise its performance in the 2026 and 2028 elections.

Security Over Public Relations: Israel’s Battlefield Priorities

When asked about Israel’s strategic priorities after Oct. 7, Troy asserted that winning on the battlefield remains paramount, outweighing diplomatic or public‑relations battles. He contended that while international opinion matters, the immediate existential threat posed by hostile actors demands that Israel focus its resources on security operations and deterrence.

This emphasis on military victory reflects a broader consensus within Israeli security circles that a robust response to terrorism is the most effective way to restore credibility abroad. Troy noted that the Israeli public, despite political fragmentation, largely agrees on the need for decisive action to neutralise threats emanating from Gaza and the West Bank.

He also warned that an over‑reliance on diplomatic messaging could backfire if it fails to address the underlying security challenges. In his view, the “war against Zionism” is fought on two fronts: the literal battlefield and the arena of ideas. Prioritising the former, he argued, sends a clear signal to both adversaries and allies that Israel will not compromise on its right to defend its citizens.

Political Fragmentation and the Upcoming Election

Turning to the domestic political scene, Troy analysed the current divide among Israeli voters. He described the split as primarily tribal, with two main camps rallying around Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former General Gadi Eisenkot, his chief opponent. This tribalism, he argued, creates a stalemate that could complicate coalition‑building after the election.

Despite the rivalry, Troy highlighted a surprising degree of consensus on core Zionist issues. Both camps, he said, share common ground on security policies and even on the contentious matter of drafting Haredi men into the Israel Defense Forces. This broad agreement, he suggested, could serve as a foundation for future cooperation if political leaders can navigate the tribal loyalties that dominate current campaigning.

However, Troy expressed doubt that either Netanyahu or Eisenkot can avoid allying with allies on the right or the left to secure a governing majority. He warned that the necessity of coalition politics may force each leader to compromise on certain policy areas, potentially diluting the clear security agenda that both claim to champion.

The Role of International Liberal Figures in Shaping the Narrative

In the JNS discussion, Troy identified a cadre of academics, journalists, and cultural influencers who, under the banner of “anti‑racism,” propagate narratives that paint Israel as a colonial oppressor. He argued that these figures, while often presenting themselves as progressive, inadvertently echo the Soviet‑era propaganda that first framed Zionism as a form of racism.

By embedding anti‑Zionist tropes in mainstream discourse, these liberal voices influence public opinion far beyond the borders of Israel. Troy noted that the impact is especially pronounced in the United States, where media coverage can shape policy attitudes among lawmakers and the electorate. He warned that if this trend continues unchecked, it could lead to increased diplomatic pressure on Israel in multilateral forums such as the United Nations.

The historian also pointed to the potential for these narratives to affect Israel’s relationships with European partners. He suggested that the “anti‑racist” framing resonates with certain EU political currents, creating a fertile ground for criticism of Israeli policies, even when security considerations are at stake.

Looking Ahead: Strategic Choices for Jews and Israel

Concluding the episode, Troy framed the situation as a “dangerous choice” facing Jews worldwide. He urged the Jewish community to recognise the stakes of the ideological battle and to respond with both vigilance and strategic engagement. For Israel, he reiterated that battlefield success must be paired with a robust effort to counter the anti‑Zionist narrative on the global stage.

He called on Israeli leaders to maintain a clear security focus while also strengthening diplomatic outreach that emphasises Israel’s democratic values and its contributions to regional stability. By doing so, Troy believes Israel can mitigate the damaging effects of the revived “Zionism is racism” rhetoric and preserve its standing among allies.

Finally, Troy warned that the political calculus for the 2026 election will be heavily influenced by how parties address the twin challenges of security and the growing anti‑Zionist sentiment. He suggested that voters who prioritise Israel’s safety and international legitimacy may gravitate toward leaders who demonstrate both military competence and the ability to articulate a compelling narrative that counters the far‑left’s accusations.

By Hannah Berg, Staff Writer

This article was produced with AI-assisted research and editorial support. Reporting is based on the source material cited below. Sources: JNS TV video report (08 October 2026); JNS TV; Global1.News