There is a saying that every driver in Israel is familiar with: You can be right, or you can be smart.

That choice — between standing on principle and adapting to an unfair reality (that car forcibly merging despite my having the right of way) — is increasingly playing out in American Jewish communal organizations over the use of the term “Zionism.” This week, that fraught debate claimed a “victim,” as a communications consultant for Jewish Federations of North America had his contract ended abruptly in light of blowback over a presentation that advocated avoiding the word “Zionism” in favor of less misunderstood terms. More on this below. 

At its simplest, Zionism means belief in the right to Jewish self-determination. Overwhelmingly, it is understood to specifically mean belief in the right to Jewish self-determination in the Land of Israel, though Zionist leaders did at one time consider the establishment of a Jewish state in what was then Uganda (and is now part of Kenya).

Belief in the right of Jewish self-determination in the Land of Israel is nearly ubiquitous among Jews, and it is common among non-Jews as well. A Jewish Federations of North America study from earlier this year found that 88% of American Jewish respondents support the existence of a Jewish, democratic State of Israel. And a recent study by the British anti-polarization group More in Common found that 53% of British citizens — who tend to be less supportive of Israel than Americans — say that they “support the right of Jewish people to have a nation in Israel,” while only 9% said that they didn’t. (The rest said they weren’t sure.)

But while the concept of Zionism has broad support, the term itself does not. That same JFNA study found that 37% of respondents actively identified as Zionists. The British poll found that 9% of respondents said they considered themselves to be Zionists. The JFNA poll offers an explanation for the disparity: Most respondents believe that Zionism means more than just support for Jewish self-determination in Israel. 

“Many believe the term also means supporting the policies, decisions, and actions of the Israeli government, including actions they strongly disagree with. Others believe it entails claiming exclusive Jewish rights to the West Bank and/or Gaza, endorsing inequality between Jews and Palestinians, or embracing specific political ideologies,” Mimi Kravetz, JFNA’s chief impact officer, wrote in an opinion piece in the Jewish Telegraphic Agency in February about the poll.

This “definition creep” — as Kravetz referred to it — can be attributed, in part, to Jewish and Israeli leaders misusing the term, but turning “Zionism” into a toxic brand has been a steady project of Israel’s enemies for decades, seen most clearly in a 1975 U.N. resolution (repealed 16 years later) declaring that “Zionism is racism,” which was first spearheaded by the Soviet bloc, Arab League and the Non-Aligned Movement. In a paper published last year for Tel Aviv’s Institute for National Security Studies think tank, Batsheva Neuer, a historian of contemporary antisemitism, tracked how the idea of “Zionism is racism” developed from a Soviet-backed conspiracy to a widely held belief around the world. 

In a recent Substack post, Jonah Platt discussed the growing toxicity and ignorance around Zionism. “A large swath of the global population has been carefully taught — by social media, by elementary and middle and high school teachers, by their friends who learned it from their teachers or social media, and by tenured college professors — that Zionism means Israelis want to kill all Palestinians on Earth simply because of who they are: their skin color, their not-Jewness,” he wrote. “[They] have been taught that Zionism is an evil on par with other racially motivated murder cults like Nazism or the KKK.”

For some in the Jewish world, the fact that the word Zionism has taken on this negative connotation as a result of a coordinated, persistent campaign is a sufficient reason to fight for the term. It is, after all, the right word to describe Jewish self-determination. For them, the term “Zionism” should be used loudly, proudly and widely. Words carry symbolic meaning and allowing enemies to take the term away is a slippery slope to abandoning the idea it represents. Zionism should be reclaimed and used to educate both Jews and the wider world about the concept and its history as a liberation ideology. Zionist academic and columnist Gil Troy, for instance, has been a major proponent of this view.

To others, the word “Zionism” is just a word, and Jewish communal focus should be on the idea that it represents, even if that means strategically — in their minds, smartly — forfeiting the term in some cases. (To others still, “Zionism” has become hopelessly loaded with decades of baggage and needs to be discarded in favor of clearly defined terms.)

JFNA — one of the American Jewish community’s largest bodies — appeared to adopt the view that the term “Zionism” had come to be widely misunderstood and needlessly divisive, even as the organization stressed that it remained a Zionist institution with unwavering commitment to the State of Israel. Earlier this year, in light of its survey, the group adopted a messaging strategy that advocated the use of alternative terms to Zionism “that have broader appeal among Jewish audiences,” but which reflect the same meaning as “Zionism.” 

Yet facing online backlash after a slide from a presentation on this strategy was leaked to the Jerusalem News Syndicate, JFNA cut its contract with one of the lead authors of that strategy, revealing — among other things — the depth of the sensitivities about the use of the term “Zionism” at a time when the Jewish community broadly feels under attack.

However Jewish communal organizations proceed — doing what is right or what is smart — they should do so confidently, clearly and consistently.