CAEF Letter to the Editor of The Conversation Re: The Conflation problem by Mira Sucharov

Dear Editor,

I have reviewed the article by Professor Mira Sucharov, published in The Conversation on October 26th, 2025 and found it shallow and lacking veracity about Israel, Zionism and Antisemitism. Coincidentally, I received an article from a graduate student who had very strong criticism of the article you published, but prefers to remain anonymous because the very environment created by Sucharov, and many antiZionists, has put Jewish students at risk, made them uncomfortable and subjected them to discriminatory behaviour and worse. This is sad and I suggest you consider this when publishing very one-sided anti-Israel polemics.

The student deserves to be heard so I am sharing the article sent to me. I wish I could claim it as my own though no doubt you won't publish it. I understand that writers need to be identified; however, you might take seriously the issues raised in the document. You might review articles by Sucharov and others going forward with an eye to the lies they perpetuate, history ignored, and antisemitic bias.

Anti-Zionism is Antisemitism (no hyphen applies) and this cannot be denied. There is no Judaism without Zionism; I suggest you recognize the sole source of Judaism is the Torah, the Hebrew Bible and it references Israel, Jerusalem, and the Land promised by God, hundreds of times. Zion is the name often used for the land and for the people; the attachment to that land is thousands of years old. Jews are indigenous to Israel. Jews were there several thousand years before Islam existed. Arabs arrived as invaders in the 7th century. The true colonizers are the Arabs who spread Islam across North Africa and the Middle East, driving out Jews, Christians and others or forcibly converting them. It is time that The Conversation sought writers of truth about history and the law as it pertains to Israel.

Thank you for reading the attached and considering its message.

Sincerely,

Andria Spindel

Executive Director

Canadian Antisemitism Education Foundation

---

Anti-Zionism is Antisemitism 

Professor Mira Sucharov’s article in The Conversation online journal, titled “The Conflation Problem: Why anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism are not the same,” and disseminated to likely thousands of academics by The Federation for the Humanities and Social Sciences as expert opinion, by a Jewish scholar, no less, is highly problematic. First, she begins by citing research done by her back in 2022 on American Jews, not Canadian Jews, though this ‘conversation’ is happening in a Canadian context and there is a marked difference between Canadian Jewish and American Jewish attitudes on identity, not to mention the variances in both since Oct. 7, 2023. In any case, it is less-so the fluctuating numbers associated with a self-identification with Zionism that is the matter as much as Sucharov’s changing definition of Zionism itself, which, at its heart, is just the belief that Jews have a right to self-determination in Israel, their ancestral homeland, as opposed to a “belief in privileging Jewish rights over non-Jewish rights in Israel,” which is not based on reality in Israel, where all Israeli citizens have equal rights under the law, nor is it part of Zionist ideology. Israel is a pluralistic open and diverse democracy. 

Professor Sucharov then describes her own ever-changing sense of self vis a vis Zionism (read: Israel). She clearly does not, and has not identified, as simply a Zionist, which is how over 90% of Canadian Jews identify (likely more) and therefore she exposes herself as being part of a tiny fringe minority of Canadian Jews. She should, therefore, not be relied upon to represent the general Canadian Jewish consensus, nor should her voice be amplified in Canadian academia. Indeed, I and many others, find it frustrating when academic channels and ‘progressive’ media outlets select these minority Jewish voices, supposedly to represent Jews or, in the least, to present (good) acceptable Jews with moral authority and academic credentials. At least Professor Sucharov is transparent about her sense of self, which is something, though likely does not mean much to the average left-leaning non-Jewish academic, who reads and accepts her opinions at face value. 

Professor Sucharov then presents, and very broadly argues against, three major points often cited by Zionists which indicate that antizionism is antisemitism. These are: the right to Jewish self-determination in their ancestral homeland singularly being up for debate, the fact that most Jews are Zionists and therefore being antizionist is discriminatory, and thirdly that Jews are the only oppressed group being denied the right to define terminology around their own oppression. She counters these by stating that all these points may be true, however, the fact that they negatively affect another people, namely the Palestinians, is enough to dismiss them altogether. I disagree. 

Any action has a reaction. Dismissing something on the basis that it negatively affects another group is not a legitimate argument. Almost all nations were formed through conflict which negatively affected some people. Why is Israel being held to a different standard? All groups- most especially historically oppressed minorities are given the basic right to define themselves and their own oppression using their own terminology. Why not Israelis? It’s called a double standard. 

Former Soviet political prisoner, and later Israeli politician, and leading authority on antisemitism, Natan Sharansky, presented a useful “three D test” which helps distinguish legitimate criticism of Israel with antisemitism disguised as antizionism: Demonization, Delegitimization and Double Standard. Simple put, if the State of Israel is demonized, delegitimized and/or a double standard is applied to it, as opposed to any other nation on earth, that is antisemitic. For example, no one is questioning the very legitimacy of almost every other country (except maybe Canada), though borders are artificial and most nations were occupied through conquest. The unique delegitimization of Israel is everywhere, in the media, in academia and on the street. It must end. 

Professor Sucharov writes that Zionism is a political ideology. That’s only partially true and misleading since Judaism, at its core, is a Zionist religion. We say ‘next year in Jerusalem’ at the end of every Passover dinner and pray toward Jerusalem three times a day. Jerusalem is mentioned hundreds of times in the Hebrew Bible which in this context often refers to the entire Land of Israel. The Zionist movement became political only at the turn of the last century when Jews decided to turn their several thousand years’ old dream to return to their ancient homeland, into a modern reality, culminating in the re-establishment of the State of Israel in 1948. The only time in history when it was a sovereign land prior to 1948 was as the Jewish state of Israel under King David. 

The Jewish connection to Israel is not only cultural, but historical, genetic, linguistic and religious. Just like any other indigenous ‘people’ or nation, the Jewish nation – Am Israel – is inextricably tied to the Land of Israel, today’s State of Israel. It is our homeland and our safe refuge. Indeed, our entire peoplehood is centred around it. 

As a Canadian Jewish academic, I do not agree with most of what Professor Sucharov wrote in her opinion article, but I do agree on the second last line: “One can seek to understand the harm Zionism has caused to Palestinians.” Sure, but the double standard here is clear. Professor Sucharov has much more empathy for one demographic community versus another. Israelis and Jews worldwide would love nothing more than to live in peace with their Palestinian Arab neighbours, just like they try to live alongside, and with, the Arab/Palestinian citizens of Israel. However, the other side must recognize Israel’s legitimacy first and commit to non-violence. 

As for antizionism, it is a most insidious form of hate. It masks as legitimate critical political opinion at worst, and even social justice at best, yet it is based on disinformation. Most antizionists have never even been to the Middle East, nor are they educated enough about that part of the world to hold such strong opinions against Israel. Worse, they project their irrational hate of all things Israel onto Israeli and pro-Israel institutions and individuals. It creates hostile environments in which to live and work. I’ll go so far as to write that it’s discriminatory, because it is. When Israeli academia and arts are being solely boycotted, while the equivalent intellectual property and programs are accepted from places with the world’s worst human rights abuses, that’s discrimination. 

And this isn’t theoretical. It’s tangible. It’s felt. It’s exhausting to deal with, and it must stop. Articles like that of Professor Sucharov, give antizionism validity and antizionists legitimacy. Hate has no place in academia.