Skip to main content

Cracks in the Foundations of the Zionist Entity

 One of the main supporters of Zionism has written an essay* that clearly represents a major shift — and a visible crack in the Zionist project. Without renouncing Zionism, Yuval Noah Harari dismantles several of its core moral pillars. 

He explicitly rejects the idea that Jews are the “original indigenous people” of the land, denies that ancient kingdoms or Roman-era events create modern ownership rights, and insists that history cannot function as a real-estate deed. This alone marks a serious break with classical Zionist justification.

More strikingly, he acknowledges that in the early 20th century Palestinians had a stronger claim to the land than Jewish immigrants, and that European antisemitism was not a problem Palestinians were responsible for solving. Zionism appears here not as an inevitable historical return, but as a minority political project — contested even among Jews themselves.

Harari also abandons the moral asymmetry long embedded in Zionist discourse. Israeli and Palestinian narratives are treated as equally mythologized and equally destructive when turned into absolute certainties. Security, borders, and “two states” are no longer presented as solutions in themselves; without mutual legitimacy and generosity, they are meaningless.

That said, Harari still stops short. Narratives matter, but they cannot replace history, rights, and power relations. Without confronting colonial dynamics, structural asymmetry, and the question of justice, calls for coexistence risk remaining ethically appealing yet politically insufficient. Harari clearly needs to go further — but even what he says here already represents a visible crack in the ideological foundations of the Zionist project.

Benyounès Saidi

*Financial Times, “Only generosity can secure peace between Israelis and Palestinians”, November 8, 2025

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Covid-19 Incredible news!

"Europe and the United States have decided to earmark 4% of all funds expended in the fight against Covid-19 to the eradication of malaria, AIDS and tuberculosis, diseases that kill millions of people every year." I was sitting in front of my TV watching the news. I could barely believe my ears. As the report continued, I turned up the sound so as not to miss a word. The United States has lifted sanctions against Cuba and Venezuela and sent 10 planes with medical equipment and personnel to assist those countries in their fight against Covid-19. The leaders of North and South Korea have signed an historic agreement to reunite their country, henceforth known as the Republic of Korea. The African and European Unions have signed a free trade agreement, under which goods and citizens may circulate freely from one continent to the other. The stock exchanges are now publishing daily figures on the profits of major companies, broken down by country, to serve as t...

COVID-19 Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong: they have a lot to teach us

These countries have achieved impressive results in managing the COVID-19 crisis because they are industrialized nations. Their absolutely remarkable story can be a source of inspiration to others. On various fronts, these countries have a similar story to tell. With the onset of COVID-19, they were all able to control the epidemic with an entirely appropriate response.  The media – western in particular – were quick to explain that what helped these countries was the fact that they had adopted masks, that mask-wearing was part of the culture, that these countries are authoritarian in nature, etc. These explanations are mostly stereotypes. The reality is quite different. These four countries (the Special Administrative Region of China since 1997, in the case of Hong Kong) made history in the 1960s because they were the first to industrialize following what was called the industrial revolution in Europe at the end of the 18th century. This is also why they were designated Newly Indu...

Negotiations: Beyond Words

  After the first day of negotiations, Iran stated that some areas of convergence had been reached, but significant disagreements remain. Tehran called for continuing the diplomatic path despite the absence of an agreement. U.S. officials indicated that the discussions ended without a deal. According to them, Iran refused the American conditions, particularly regarding the nuclear issue. Nevertheless, the United States described the exchanges as serious while reaffirming its “red lines”. In a regional context marked by Israel’s opposition to Iran’s nuclear program, tensions between the United States and Iran continue to revolve around this issue. Since the creation of the Islamic Republic and the hostage crisis of 1979, several cycles of negotiations have taken place. At each stage, the level of U.S. representation has increased, moving from diplomats to government officials, then to special envoys, and today reaching the vice president. The U.S. president himself was reportedly in...