“Anti-Zionism Is a Structure of Violence:” Cornell Guest Lecturer Speaks on Modern Jew Hatred
On Tuesday, October 6, 2026, guest lecturer Adam Louis-Klein gave a talk entitled “The Contemporary Face of Jew Hatred: Threats Against Jews Today.” Mr. Louis-Klein is a faculty fellow at the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism & Policy and a PhD student at McGill University. The event was sponsored by Standing Against Antisemitism at Cornell – a staff special interest group within the Department of Belonging and Inclusion – and was co-sponsored by Cornell Hillel. President Kotlikoff had been scheduled to give opening remarks, but was unable to attend, so instead a different faculty member read a statement from Cornell University on its commitment to free speech.
The Speech
Mr. Louis-Klein’s thesis centered around what he called “anti-Zionism.” He argued that anti-Jewish sentiments – particularly in the aftermath of the October 7 attacks – no longer fit the definition of classical antisemitism, saying “I do not think we should call it antisemitism.” Rather, he claimed, in order to properly combat said sentiments, Jews and their allies must rebrand them as anti-Zionist: “the more you talk about antisemitism, the more you play into the logic of anti-Zionism.”
Beginning with the idea of classical antisemitism, Mr. Louis-Klein provided an overview of the evolution of anti-Jewish sentiment in the modern era. He observed that the idea of antisemitism was first coined in 1879 by German nationalist Wilhelm Marr, who used it to argue that he was not against the Jewish people because of their religion; rather, he was against the idea of “semitism,” which, according to Mr. Louis-Klein, was the idea that the Jews were an oriental, outsider people. In other words, antisemitism justified opposition to Jews because they were foreign invaders into European society instead of on the basis of their religion. This, Mr. Louis-Klein argued, is the same euphemistic step used to justify anti-Jewish sentiments today, since modern anti-Zionists claim that they oppose Zionism, not the Jewish religion. Therefore, he concluded, modern animosity towards Israel is not anything new, but rather the latest iteration of an age-old distrust of or disgust towards Jews.
Mr. Louis-Klein argued that there is systemic anti-Zionism in modern society, pointing to evidence ranging from the New York Times painting a professor who applauded the October 7 attacks as an expert in genocide to the fact that the UN has issued more resolutions condemning Israel than any other country. He then pinpointed three “core sources” of contemporary anti-Zionism: Nazi-Islamist collaboration, the Soviet-Arab alliance, and modern Western progressivism.
Throughout the 30s and 40s, there was significant collaboration between the Nazis and various Islamic groups, particularly the Muslim Brotherhood, according to Mr. Louis-Klein. He explained that many of these groups would selectively read the Koran to justify the annihilation of the Jewish people in what he called “proto-anti-Zionism.” The “proto” distinction, he elaborated, stems from the fact that the anti-Jewish sentiments of this era were still rooted in classical antisemitism and traditional Muslim animosity towards Jews. This, however, changed in the ensuing decades, as the USSR promoted anti-Zionist intellectuals and funded anti-Zionist groups in the Islamic world to oppose the US by weakening Israel, its ally. Mr. Louis-Klein identified Fayez Sayegh as the “foundational theorist of anti-Zionism.” Sayegh was influenced by Syrian Nazi groups and produced propaganda for the Arab League in New York City. In 1956, he famously pitted a pro-Israel and anti-Israel Jew against each other as evidence that anti-Zionism isn’t Jew hatred since there are Jews that can fall into the anti-Zionist category– a claim, Mr. Louis-Klein observes, that is still made today. He notes that Sayegh’s 1965 book Zionist Colonialism in Palestine was the first instance of the use of the term “settler colonialism”, leading him to claim that Sayegh not only invented the term but also that he created it specifically to refer to Israel. He argued that this had to be the case because traditional colonialism was done for the extraction of goods and/or labor, and, although Israel openly admitted to creating a colony, they extracted neither, instead seeking to take possession of land and establish a Jewish settlement in the Levant.
As Mr. Louis-Klein explains, anti-Zionism continued to evolve into the early 21st century, when Western progressive intellectuals applied Patrick Wolfe’s ideas about settler colonialism in Australia to the modern state of Israel. Wolfe argued that, because it focuses on the acquisition of land, settler colonialism necessitates the elimination of the native population to maintain control thereof, which amounts to both a physical and cultural genocide of the native population. Mr. Louis-Klein pointed to the Journal of Genocide Research as the link between Wolfe’s claims and Israel. “Very few scholars” publishing in this journal, he explained, broke with existing literature on the topic of genocide and redefined it as being not necessarily the deliberate extermination of an entire demographic group but rather any action – intentional or otherwise – that erases either a people or their culture. He continued that this small number of scholars changed the definition of genocide so it could apply to Israel and were then quoted by left-wing media outlets such as the New York Times, which is the reason that so many accuse Israel of genocide. “That’s it. That’s actually it,” he said. “That’s the genocide libel that has been disseminated to millions around the world.” He used this to argue that anti-Zionists implicitly believe that there can be no refutation of their claims because anything non-genocidal that Israel does can be labeled as “humanitarian cover” for genocide.
“Anti-Zionism is a structure of violence,” he concluded, adding that it is an ideology that must be combatted.
The Q&A
After being asked how to effectively combat anti-Zionism in the United States, Mr. Louis-Klein instructed audience members to “name it and set boundaries.” He said that politicians condemning antisemitism is not enough; they need to condemn both antisemitism and anti-Zionism. He added that the Jewish community has the “infrastructure” to combat anti-Zionism, but not the language, and hopes that his use of the term will help popularize that language.
Another audience member asked how one should refute libels against Jews. He reiterated his previous claim that “I do not think one should factually debate them;” instead, one should “simply say no” and emphasize “that anti-Zionism is a racist movement, that anti-Zionism is a hate movement.” He provided a historical analogue. In the Middle Ages, he claimed, there was a widespread rumor that Jews killed Christian children and used their blood to make matzo, a common Jewish meal. He observed that the Jews didn’t “hand them a recipe for matzo”; rather, they called this falsehood “the blood libel,” a label that sticks to this day. Mr. Louis-Klein further added that Jews and their allies need to educate people on the history of anti-Zionism. “Anti-Zionism has its own trail of violence,” he said, adding that schools do a great job teaching about antisemitic violence – epitomized in the Holocaust – such that nobody takes people who use antisemitic tropes seriously. He argued that the same approach is necessary for countering anti-Zionism.
The next question inquired of Mr. Louis-Klein how he navigates harassment and discrimination because of his Jewish heritage. He answered that, although it is difficult dealing with being called “an evil white Zionist who supports genocide” (to use his words), the Jewish community can combat this by taking back public institutions and developing a discourse on anti-Zionism.
Another audience member asked Mr. Louis-Klein if he sees hope in combating anti-Zionism. He gave a conditional “yes,” saying that his hope is contingent on developing a discourse on anti-Zionism as he previously outlined. He added the suggestion that they should “use the Left’s own tools” of critical theory “against them.”
Three questions dealt specifically with the state of Israel. The first asked Mr. Louis-Klein to clarify the difference between criticizing Israel and anti-Zionism. He responded with the analogy that he can criticize his wife every once in a while for things she does wrong, but if he does it all the time, at some point it turns into abuse. He argued that much of the criticism of Israel today is akin to the latter category, describing it as “systemic” and “obsessive” hate.
The second asked how one should respond to those who argue that Israel was fine before the October 7 attacks but became genocidal in response. Mr. Louis-Klein answered by telling the audience to observe that the narrative that Israel is a genocidal state had already existed for decades within left-wing academia prior to 2023 and that the narrative just came into the mainstream in the aftermath of October 7.
The third question asked what Israel can do to remedy their losing position in “a PR war,” which Mr. Louis-Klein claimed was the wrong way to frame the issue since it makes it about Israel, not anti-Zionism.
“Israel doesn’t need better PR, anti-Zionism needs worse PR,” he said.
