Is Spite of What Zionists Say, It’s a Good Thing to Criticize Governments

In a revealing exchange at the Religious Liberty Commission’s hearing on Anti-Semitism and Freedom of Religion, commission member Carrie Prejean Boller sought a clear answer to the question “is anti-Zionism anti-Semitism?” 

The answer, according to pro-Israel activist Yitzchok Frankel, and according to Rabbi Ari Berman, is “yes.” Frankel, when asked if anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism stated flatly “yes.” Rabbi Ari Berman further stated: “Undoubtedly anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism.”

In other words, one must support the existence and the policies of a man-made state known as the State of Israel, or one is anti-Semitic.

Frankel, borrowing a metric from Natan Sharanky (head of the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy), states that there are three types of things one is not allowed to say about the state or Israel—and if you do so you are an anti-Semite: you “shouldn’t delegitimize [the State of Israel], you shouldn’t demonize it, and you shouldn’t abide by a double standard.” 

In other words, the only way one can be safe from charges of anti-Semitism is to never say anything that questions the legitimacy of the government of Israel, and one cannot criticize it either. And let’s not kid ourselves that “moderate” criticism of the Israeli state will be termed as anything other than “demonizing” Israel. Anyone who has been paying attention knows that virtually any criticism of the Israeli state is classified by Zionists as “demonizing” Israel.

And finally, one must not engage in double standards. This last statement was summed up by Berman: “To not support the rights of Israel to exist—which is what anti-Zionists do, while not taking that same stand to the 28 Muslim countries and 13 Christian countries in this world…is absolutely anti-Semitism.”

“I’m a Catholic, and Catholics do not embrace Zionism, just so you know. So are all Catholics anti-Semites according to you?”

Incredible exchange today between Carrie Prejean Boller and a group of Jewish Zionists at the White House’s Religious Liberty Commission.

Texas Lt. Gov.… pic.twitter.com/kf4sYclPL8

— Chris Menahan 🇺🇸 (@infolibnews) February 9, 2026

On this final point, it must be noted that it is clearly not necessary to employ any double standards to oppose the existence of the state or Israel. The fact is the Israeli state has not more a “right” to exist than any other state. There is no “right to exist” for the states we now call “The United Kingdom” the “Arab Republic of Egypt” or “The United States of America.”

These are all countries, inhabited by groups of people who have rights. But the corporations we call “states” do not have rights of any kind. No double standard is ever necessary. 

This fact was emphasized in a 2024 exchange between Francesca Albanese, the UN’s Special Rapporteur in Palestine, and pro-Israel Canadian reporter Bryan Passifiume. Albanese provided some clarification: 

Passifiume: Does Israel have a right to exist?

Albanese: Israel does exist. Israel is a recognized member of the United Nations. Besides this, there is not such a thing in international law like “the right of a state to exist.” Does Italy have a right to exist? Italy exists. Now, if tomorrow, Italy and France want to merge and become Ita-France, fine, this is not up to us. What is enshrined in international law is the right of a people to exist.

So, the state of Israel is there, it is protected as a member of the United Nations. Does this justify the erasure of another people? Hell no. Not 75 years ago. Not 57 years ago. Surely not today. Where is the protection of the Palestinian people from erasure, from annexation, from illegal annexation, from apartheid?

In spite of the religious claims made by some Zionists, no state on earth was created by God, and there is no moral principle or natural law that mandates support for any state. Nor is there any moral principle or natural law that prohibits delegitimizing any state. States are simply organizations, created by human beings, that carry out the agenda of the governing elite in each state. There is no mandate from heaven. There isn’t even any such thing as “the will of the people.” 

In this, the State of Israel is no different from any other state. States come and go, and are formed and are dissolved in regular intervals. The state of Israel is just one among many of these temporary organizations. Even the oldest states on earth are relatively young, and this is clear when we don’t confuse states with the subject populations that states rule over.

For example, the English, as a people, are clearly very old. But the current English state was founded no earlier than 1688 with the Parliamentary coup that put William and Mary on the throne. Most other states are much younger. The current French republic was founded in 1958. The French state is not the same thing as the French. The state that rules over the subject population in the United States is one of the older ones. It too will some day join the other extinct states in the ash heap of history.

As Thomas Jefferson contended throughout his life, states can be dissolved and dismembered in accordance with what the subject populations are willing to tolerate. This is why, throughout his life, and forty years after he wrote the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson always supported the principle of secession. States are just things. They are not to be confused with nations or peoples. 

Zionists militantly ignore all of this and claim that the Israeli state exempt from history. The Zionists claim their favorite state is synonymous with global Judaism while stating that all criticism of the State of Israel is hate speech. 

Thanks in part to Prejean, it is clear that many Zionists are a threat to freedom of speech in America when they claim that criticism of a foreign state (Israel) is hate speech. (Hate speech, by the way, isn’t real.) This is only one small half-step away from claiming that criticism of the State of Israel is not protected by the First Amendment. And from there it’s on to censorship, speech codes, and a return a revival of the covid-era war on “disinformation.” 

Editor’s note: We have covered the shifting definition (known as semantic drift) in anti-Semitism and those who are behind the push to conflate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism (such as Natan Sharansky, who was Israel’s Minister for Jerusalem and Diaspora Affairs and chair of the Jewish Agency for Israel. Sharansky founded a Global Forum against Anti-Semitism in 2003).