Communism Was Founded by Terror: A Historical Perspective

Communism, as a political ideology, began with the vision of a classless and stateless society in which the means of production were commonly owned. Rooted in the works of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, communism promised to liberate workers from exploitation, end social inequalities, and build a just world. However, when communist ideologies moved from theory to practice—particularly in the 20th century—they often became associated not with liberation, but with terror, authoritarianism, and mass violence.

This article explores how terror was not just an unfortunate consequence of communist rule in countries like the Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, and others—but a fundamental tool in the establishment and maintenance of those regimes.

---

Ideological Foundations and the Role of Violence

Communism, in its theoretical form, did not inherently advocate terror. Marx and Engels envisioned the eventual “withering away” of the state after a period of proletarian rule. However, they also spoke of the need for a "dictatorship of the proletariat" to dismantle capitalist structures. This transitional state, they believed, would suppress the old ruling class by any means necessary. The seeds of coercion and violence were thus embedded in the theory itself.

When Lenin and the Bolsheviks seized power in Russia in 1917, they transformed this idea into practice. Lenin believed that a revolution could not survive without force. His statement—"We must be ready to employ trickery, deceit, law-breaking, withholding and concealing truth"—reflected a willingness to use any means necessary to secure and maintain power.

---

The Red Terror: Soviet Communism and Repression

The Bolsheviks' rise to power marked the beginning of state-sanctioned terror on a massive scale. In 1918, during the Russian Civil War, Lenin initiated what became known as the Red Terror—a campaign of arrests, executions, and repression aimed at enemies of the revolution, real or perceived. The secret police, known as the Cheka, were granted broad authority to eliminate “counter-revolutionaries.”

Tens of thousands were executed without trial. Churches were looted, clergy were murdered, and the bourgeoisie was systematically targeted. This terror was not a byproduct of chaos—it was a deliberate strategy to instill fear and suppress dissent.

Under Joseph Stalin, this use of terror escalated into something even more systematic. Stalin’s Great Purge (1936–1938) saw the execution or imprisonment of millions, including Communist Party officials, military officers, intellectuals, and ordinary citizens. The Gulag labor camps became a vast network of forced labor and death, where political prisoners endured inhumane conditions.

By the end of Stalin’s rule, an estimated 20 million people had died as a result of executions, famine, forced labor, and state repression. Terror was not incidental—it was foundational to the regime.

---

Mao’s China: Revolution Through Fear

In China, Mao Zedong’s implementation of communist ideology similarly relied on terror as a political tool. Following the Communist Party’s victory in 1949, the People's Republic of China launched a series of campaigns designed to solidify power and remake society.

The Campaign to Suppress Counterrevolutionaries in the early 1950s resulted in hundreds of thousands of executions. The Cultural Revolution (1966–1976) unleashed a reign of ideological terror as Mao encouraged youth to denounce teachers, parents, and party officials as enemies of the revolution. Public humiliations, beatings, and mass executions became commonplace.

The Great Leap Forward, a radical economic and social campaign initiated by Mao in the late 1950s, led to one of the deadliest famines in human history. Scholars estimate that between 30 and 45 million people died due to starvation, forced labor, and state-imposed agricultural policies. Again, this was not merely mismanagement—it was a result of ideological zeal enforced through coercion and terror.

---

Cambodia’s Killing Fields

Perhaps no communist regime employed terror more brutally than Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. When the Khmer Rouge came to power in 1975, they aimed to create a classless, agrarian utopia by forcefully evacuating cities and eliminating all elements of the old society.

Within four years, an estimated 1.7 to 2 million people—almost a quarter of Cambodia’s population—were executed, starved, or worked to death. Intellectuals, professionals, religious figures, and even people who wore glasses were targeted as “enemies of the revolution.”

Torture centers such as Tuol Sleng (S-21) became symbols of the regime’s fanatical violence. The Khmer Rouge’s rule was defined by fear, surveillance, and the annihilation of anyone who deviated from the party’s radical vision.

---

Why Terror Was Central to Communist Regimes

Across different countries and leaders, communism in practice often devolved into violent authoritarianism. But why was terror so central to these regimes?

1. Total Ideological Control: Communist regimes sought not just political power, but ideological conformity. Dissent was viewed as existential threat, and thus crushed with violence.

2. Utopian Goals Justify Means: The belief that a perfect society could be created justified extreme measures. Leaders argued that short-term terror was a necessary cost for long-term paradise.

3. Elimination of Class Enemies: Marxist theory divides society into antagonistic classes. In practice, this translated into the systematic targeting and elimination of "class enemies."

4. Concentration of Power: One-party rule eliminated checks and balances. Dictators like Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot could wield terror as a tool of personal power, eliminating rivals and consolidating control.

5. Historical Precedents: Lenin’s early use of terror set a precedent for future regimes. Subsequent leaders inherited and expanded the machinery of repression.

---

Communism vs. the Human Cost

It is important to distinguish between communist theory and communist practice. Marx envisioned a society where workers were free and equal, and where the state would eventually become unnecessary. However, every major attempt to implement communism on a national scale—especially in the 20th century—relied on terror to establish and enforce its rule.

The irony is stark: an ideology that claimed to liberate the masses ended up enslaving them through surveillance, censorship, forced labor, and mass killings. Estimates vary, but historians often attribute more than 100 million deaths in the 20th century to communist regimes, making it one of the most deadly political movements in history.

---

Conclusion

Communism, in practice, was not founded in peaceful revolution or democratic consent, but through force, fear, and systematic terror. From the Bolsheviks in Russia to Mao’s China and Pol Pot’s Cambodia, terror was not an accidental byproduct—it was a central mechanism for control.

While the original ideas of communism may have aimed at justice and equality, the historical record is clear: wherever communism took power in the 20th century, terror followed. Understanding this history is essential—not to dismiss the concerns about inequality that communism tried to address—but to ensure that future visions of justice are pursued without sacrificing freedom, human dignity, and life itself.

The First Martyr in the Palestinian Cause Was a Jew, Not an Arab

The narrative of martyrdom in the Palestinian cause is often portrayed as a struggle led by Arabs against foreign occupation. However, a closer examination reveals that the first martyr in this context was, in fact, a Jewish individual—Jacob Israël de Haan. His assassination in 1924 by the Haganah, a Zionist paramilitary group, marks a pivotal moment in the history of the Palestinian cause and offers insights into the complex interplay of politics, identity, and resistance in the region.

Early Life and Ideological Shift

Jacob Israël de Haan was born in 1881 in the Netherlands to a religious Jewish family. Initially, he was an ardent Zionist, believing in the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine. However, during his time in Palestine, de Haan underwent a significant ideological transformation. He became increasingly disillusioned with the Zionist movement's approach, particularly its disregard for the rights and aspirations of the Arab population in the region.

De Haan's evolving views led him to advocate for a binational state where Jews and Arabs could coexist peacefully. He believed that the Zionist movement's exclusive focus on Jewish nationalism was detrimental to the indigenous Arab population and counterproductive to achieving lasting peace in the region.

Advocacy for Arab Rights

In 1924, de Haan traveled to London to present his views to the British authorities, who held the mandate over Palestine. He sought to persuade them to adopt policies that would ensure the protection of Arab rights and promote a more inclusive approach to the governance of Palestine.

De Haan's advocacy extended beyond political circles. He engaged with Arab leaders and communities, emphasizing the importance of mutual respect and understanding between Jews and Arabs. His efforts were aimed at fostering dialogue and cooperation, challenging the prevailing narratives of division and conflict.

Assassination and Aftermath

De Haan's activities and outspoken criticism of the Zionist leadership made him a target. On June 30, 1924, he was assassinated in Jerusalem by members of the Haganah. The assassination was officially justified by the Zionist leadership as a necessary action to prevent de Haan from undermining the Zionist cause. However, the incident sparked outrage among various Jewish communities, particularly among the Haredi (ultra-Orthodox) Jews, who viewed de Haan's murder as a betrayal of Jewish ethical principles.

The assassination of Jacob Israël de Haan is considered the first political murder within the Jewish community in Palestine. It highlighted the deep divisions within the Jewish population regarding the direction of the Zionist movement and the treatment of the Arab population.

Legacy and Historical Significance

Jacob Israël de Haan's assassination had profound implications for the Palestinian cause. It underscored the internal conflicts within the Jewish community and the complexities of the Zionist project. De Haan's advocacy for Arab rights and his vision of a binational state challenged the dominant narratives and provided an alternative perspective on the future of Palestine.

His death also served as a catalyst for increased Arab resistance to Zionist policies. The realization that not all Jews supported the Zionist agenda galvanized Arab communities and contributed to the development of a more unified Palestinian national identity.

In contemporary discussions about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Jacob Israël de Haan's legacy serves as a reminder of the diverse perspectives within both Jewish and Arab communities. His commitment to justice, peace, and coexistence continues to inspire those who seek a resolution to the conflict based on mutual respect and understanding.

Conclusion

The story of Jacob Israël de Haan challenges conventional narratives about the origins of the Palestinian cause. His assassination by a Jewish paramilitary group underscores the complexities and internal divisions within the Zionist movement and highlights the importance of considering diverse perspectives in the pursuit of peace. Recognizing de Haan's contributions and his tragic end is essential for a comprehensive understanding of the historical dynamics that have shaped the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Terrorism as an Ideological Tool of the Antichrist: A Theological Perspective on Global Subjugation

Introduction

Terrorism, in all its forms, has emerged as one of the most destabilizing forces of the modern era. From organized international networks to lone-wolf actors, the use of fear, violence, and chaos to achieve political or ideological goals has become a tragic hallmark of the 21st century. Yet beyond the geopolitical consequences, some theologians and thinkers interpret terrorism through a spiritual or eschatological lens, suggesting that it is not merely a human phenomenon, but a manifestation of evil — even a tool of the Antichrist.

This article explores terrorism as an ideology and instrument aligned with the symbolic or prophetic figure of the Antichrist — not to demonize individuals or groups, but to explore how evil can systemically use fear, deception, and destruction to dominate the globe.

---

Understanding the Concept of the Antichrist

In Christian eschatology, the Antichrist is a figure or spirit that rises in opposition to Christ and His teachings. Mentioned in the Epistles of John and alluded to in 2 Thessalonians and the Book of Revelation, the Antichrist is traditionally seen as a deceiver, a false messiah who brings about a counterfeit form of peace while ultimately leading humanity into destruction.

The Antichrist is often associated with global domination, moral corruption, and the perversion of truth. He does not necessarily appear as a violent warlord, but as a persuasive and charismatic leader who manipulates systems, ideologies, and even religions to enslave the world under a false utopia.

In this symbolic and theological framework, terrorism can be viewed not as random violence, but as one of the tools used to destabilize societies, erode faith, and prepare the way for global control.

---

Terrorism as an Ideological System

Terrorism is not merely a tactic; it is an ideology. It thrives on absolute narratives — often apocalyptic in nature — that justify violence as a means to a perceived higher end. Whether rooted in distorted religious doctrine, ethnic supremacy, or radical political ideology, terrorism uses fear to force submission, polarize societies, and delegitimize lawful authority.

In many ways, this aligns with the biblical portrayal of the Antichrist, who operates not just through military force, but through ideological subversion. Terrorism, like the spirit of the Antichrist, seeks to:

• Replace truth with propaganda

• Create chaos where there was order

• Divide people along ethnic, religious, or ideological lines

• Undermine faith in legitimate leadership and governance

• Justify evil through a corrupted vision of justice or divine will

---

The Weaponization of Fear

Fear is the primary currency of both terrorism and the Antichrist figure in Christian theology. Terrorists seek to instill fear in civilian populations to manipulate political outcomes. In a similar way, biblical descriptions of the Antichrist portray a figure who uses fear — through signs, wonders, plagues, or persecution — to enforce global allegiance.

In this model, terrorism serves a dual purpose:

1. Externally, it destabilizes governments, economies, and communities.

2. Internally, it corrupts the soul of a society, making people more willing to surrender freedoms in exchange for security.

This erosion of moral and spiritual resilience leaves individuals and nations more susceptible to manipulation and control — the very goals attributed to the Antichrist in eschatological frameworks.

---

Terrorism’s Role in Preparing for Global Control

Throughout history, crises have often been exploited by authoritarian powers to centralize authority and limit individual liberty. In apocalyptic interpretations, the Antichrist is seen as someone who rises during a time of global crisis — offering peace, unity, and stability, but only on his terms.

In this view, terrorism may not be the ultimate force of domination, but a catalyst. It creates the kind of desperation and fear that compels people to accept oppressive systems — surveillance, loss of privacy, military overreach — all in the name of safety.

When people are afraid, they are more likely to compromise. When they are angry, they are more likely to hate. Terrorism fuels both, opening the door to a world order that may sacrifice liberty, justice, and truth on the altar of security.

---

Deception and the Inversion of Good and Evil

The Antichrist, as described in Christian scripture, is a master of deception. He performs signs and wonders, misleads even the faithful, and sets himself up as a savior while ultimately opposing God. In the same way, terrorism often disguises itself as righteous resistance or divine justice — even when it targets innocents.

This inversion of moral clarity is one of the most dangerous aspects of both terrorism and the eschatological figure of the Antichrist. They both operate through lies wrapped in truth, turning victims into villains and violence into virtue.

When societies begin to accept such distortions — when suicide bombers are seen as martyrs, or when civilian deaths are dismissed as collateral — we have entered a moral twilight, fertile ground for greater spiritual deception.

---

Resisting the Spirit of Terror and Antichrist

Regardless of one's theological tradition, the response to terrorism — and to the spirit of deception and fear it represents — must be grounded in truth, justice, and courage.

1. Faith and Discernment: Individuals must be anchored in spiritual truth, capable of discerning lies from truth. This requires not only religious devotion but also critical thinking and a commitment to justice.

2. Solidarity and Compassion: Terrorism thrives on division. Communities must resist the urge to demonize entire groups and instead build bridges of understanding and shared humanity.

3. Just Governance: Governments must respond to terrorism with justice, not vengeance. When states overreach or commit abuses in the name of counter-terrorism, they risk becoming part of the problem.

4. Moral Clarity: We must never lose the ability to distinguish right from wrong, nor allow violence to be justified by ideological or theological extremism.

---

Conclusion

Terrorism, in its essence, is more than a geopolitical threat — it is an assault on the soul of humanity. It represents a system of fear, lies, and violence that aligns disturbingly well with the biblical archetype of the Antichrist: a force that seeks to enslave, deceive, and destroy under the guise of liberation or salvation.

Whether one interprets these ideas literally or symbolically, the lesson is clear: to preserve our freedoms, our faith, and our shared future, we must resist not only the physical manifestations of terror but also the spiritual and ideological corruption that terrorism represents.

In a world teetering between truth and deception, light and darkness, our collective response must be rooted in wisdom, justice, and unwavering moral clarity.

Rabbi Yaakov Shapiro: Has Zionism Hijacked Judaism?

Rabbi Yaakov Shapiro is a distinguished Orthodox Jewish thinker, rabbi, and author known for his outspoken critique of Zionism and its impact on Jewish identity. He has dedicated much of his public work to exploring what he sees as a fundamental misrepresentation of Judaism by the Zionist movement. In a time when Jewish identity is often equated with support for the State of Israel, Rabbi Shapiro raises a provocative and controversial question: Has Zionism hijacked Judaism?

His answer is a resounding “yes.” Through scholarly analysis, religious argumentation, and historical inquiry, Rabbi Shapiro asserts that Zionism has transformed a religion of faith and spiritual devotion into a nationalist, political ideology—often in direct contradiction to traditional Jewish teachings.

---

Judaism as a Religion, Not a Nationality

Central to Rabbi Shapiro’s position is the idea that Judaism is a religion, not a nationality or an ethnicity. Traditional Judaism defines Jews as a people connected through a covenant with God, with responsibilities outlined in the Torah. This spiritual identity transcends geography and political borders. For nearly two millennia, Jewish communities lived throughout the world in diaspora, maintaining their religious identity without a sovereign state.

Zionism, however, reframes Jews as a nation in the modern, political sense—similar to the French or the Italians. Rabbi Shapiro argues that this redefinition not only distorts the religious nature of Judaism but also imposes a foreign political ideology onto a spiritual tradition. According to him, this is not just a semantic shift but a radical departure from what Judaism has always stood for.

---

Zionism: A Secular Nationalist Movement

Contrary to popular belief, Zionism was largely a secular movement at its inception. Theodor Herzl, widely regarded as the father of modern political Zionism, was not a religious Jew. Many early Zionist leaders were, in fact, avowed secularists who saw Judaism primarily as a cultural or ethnic identity, not a faith. For them, the solution to anti-Semitism and the “Jewish problem” in Europe was the establishment of a Jewish state.

Rabbi Shapiro argues that this idea—redefining Jewishness in political terms—was an intentional break from millennia of Jewish religious tradition. “Zionism didn’t come to defend Jews as Jews,” he has said, “it came to change what it means to be a Jew.” In his view, the Zionist movement sought to create a new, muscular, modern Jewish identity, rooted in land, language, and sovereignty rather than Torah, mitzvot (commandments), and a relationship with God.

---

Theological Objections to a Jewish State

Rabbi Shapiro, like many in the ultra-Orthodox and Haredi Jewish worlds, also raises theological objections to Zionism. Classical Jewish teaching holds that Jews are in exile by divine decree and that redemption—and the return to the Land of Israel—will come only with the arrival of the Messiah, a divinely appointed figure. Any attempt to hasten this process through political means is seen by many rabbis as a violation of Jewish law.

One often-cited source is a Talmudic passage in Tractate Ketubot, which mentions three “oaths” that God imposed: Jews should not ascend to the Land of Israel en masse, should not rebel against the nations, and the nations should not persecute the Jews excessively. Zionism, in declaring independence and establishing a state by political and military means, is seen by Shapiro and others as violating these divine oaths.

---

The Danger of Conflating Judaism and Zionism

One of Rabbi Shapiro’s most urgent warnings is about the global consequences of conflating Judaism with Zionism. When the State of Israel claims to represent Jews worldwide, it can lead to serious misunderstandings—and even danger. For instance, anti-Israel sentiment may be misdirected at Jews in other countries who have no affiliation with or support for Israeli policies.

This conflation, Shapiro argues, also distorts Jewish identity in the eyes of non-Jews. Judaism becomes reduced to a form of ethnic nationalism, rather than being understood as a rich religious and moral tradition. As he puts it, “Israel doesn’t represent the Jews any more than Italy represents Catholics.” The danger, he insists, is that Jews become politically homogenized and held accountable for the actions of a state they may neither support nor live in.

---

Hebrew Language and Cultural Shifts

Another aspect of Rabbi Shapiro’s critique is cultural. The revival of the Hebrew language in modern Israel is often celebrated as a success story, but Shapiro sees it as another arena in which Judaism has been secularized. Traditional Hebrew, the language of the Torah and the synagogue, has been reshaped into a modern, national language for a secular state. Religious meanings are recontextualized—words like “bitachon” (trust in God) now also mean “security” in a military context, for example.

This transformation, he argues, further reinforces the Zionist project of building a new Jewish identity—one that replaces faith-based values with nationalist ideals.

---

Internal Jewish Opposition to Zionism

While critics often paint anti-Zionism as a fringe view, Rabbi Shapiro emphasizes that opposition to Zionism has deep roots in traditional Judaism. Prominent rabbis before and after the founding of Israel, such as Rabbi Chaim Elazar Shapira (the Munkatcher Rebbe), Rabbi Joel Teitelbaum (the Satmar Rebbe), and others, issued strong religious objections to Zionism.

Even today, entire communities—particularly in the ultra-Orthodox world—remain ideologically opposed to Zionism. Groups like Neturei Karta and various Hasidic sects refuse to recognize the legitimacy of the Israeli state. Rabbi Shapiro often speaks on their behalf, bringing their voices into public discourse and challenging the notion that “Judaism equals Zionism.”

---

A Call for Separation Between Religion and Nationalism

At the heart of Rabbi Shapiro’s critique is a call to return Judaism to its roots—a faith centered on the Torah, prayer, community, and ethical living. He urges Jews and non-Jews alike to recognize that Judaism is not synonymous with Israel, and that many religious Jews reject the Zionist narrative.

Rather than advocating for any political solution, Rabbi Shapiro focuses on clarity of identity. For him, the fight is not against a state but against the misrepresentation of a religion. His message is both a theological plea and a sociopolitical critique, challenging the way Jewish identity has been reframed in the modern world.

---

Conclusion

Rabbi Yaakov Shapiro’s question—Has Zionism hijacked Judaism?—is more than a rhetorical provocation. It is a deeply considered theological and philosophical inquiry that challenges assumptions held by many inside and outside the Jewish community. Whether one agrees with his conclusions or not, his arguments raise critical issues about identity, representation, and the intersection of religion and politics.

As the world continues to grapple with conflict in the Middle East and the meaning of Jewish identity in the modern era, voices like Rabbi Shapiro’s remind us that Judaism is not monolithic. His critique encourages a more nuanced understanding of what it means to be Jewish—and warns of the dangers of letting politics define a 3,000-year-old faith.

Rabbi Yaakov Shapiro: Zionism Does Not 'Cure' But Promotes Anti-Semitism

In a world where Zionism is widely portrayed as the shield and savior of Jews worldwide, Rabbi Yaakov Shapiro presents a deeply controversial and sobering argument: not only does Zionism fail to protect Jews from anti-Semitism—it has historically exacerbated it.

As an Orthodox rabbi, speaker, and author of The Empty Wagon: Zionism’s Journey from Identity Crisis to Identity Theft, Rabbi Shapiro has devoted years to explaining how Zionism, as a political ideology, is a distortion of Judaism and a danger to Jews. One of his most startling assertions is that Zionism doesn’t merely fail to stop anti-Semitism, but actually promotes and provokes it.

To understand this perspective, one must first unpack the foundational differences between Judaism and Zionism, and then examine the history Rabbi Shapiro draws upon to support his argument.

---

Judaism vs. Zionism: A Critical Distinction

Central to Rabbi Shapiro’s worldview is the belief that Judaism is a religion, while Zionism is a political movement that seeks to transform Jews into a secular nation-state. This, he says, represents a profound shift in Jewish identity—from a covenantal relationship with God to an ethnonationalist agenda.

Zionist thinkers like Theodor Herzl and Max Nordau envisioned the Jewish people as a normal nation like any other, and believed a state was the solution to the "Jewish problem"—the centuries-old reality of Jewish persecution. But Rabbi Shapiro argues that this diagnosis was flawed, and the prescription worse. The idea that a secular Jewish state could eliminate anti-Semitism, he contends, was always a fantasy—and history has proven it.

---

Zionism's Founders Embraced Anti-Semitic Tropes

Rabbi Shapiro points out that early Zionists often accepted, and even internalized, anti-Semitic stereotypes in order to argue that Jews did not belong in Europe and needed their own homeland. Herzl, the father of political Zionism, believed anti-Semitism was a natural and inevitable reaction to the Jewish presence in gentile societies. In his 1896 work Der Judenstaat (The Jewish State), Herzl wrote:

"The anti-Semites will become our most dependable friends, the anti-Semitic countries our allies."

Herzl envisioned a scenario where Zionists and anti-Semites would collaborate: the latter would help expel Jews, and the former would build a state for them.

Rabbi Shapiro emphasizes that this willingness to accept and work with anti-Semites was not fringe—it was foundational. Zionist leaders did not try to combat anti-Semitism; they tried to exploit it for political gain.

---

Collaboration with Anti-Semites in Practice

Rabbi Shapiro also highlights historical examples of Zionist cooperation with anti-Semitic regimes:

• In Nazi Germany, the Zionist Federation of Germany sent a memorandum to Hitler in 1933 expressing support for his efforts to "revive German national life" and offered Zionism as a solution to the Jewish question. The infamous Haavara Agreement, a pact between the Nazi regime and German Zionists, facilitated the emigration of some German Jews to Palestine in exchange for economic benefits to Germany—while other Jewish organizations were calling for boycotts.

• In Poland, pre-WWII Zionist leaders discouraged Jewish integration and opposed assimilationist efforts, instead promoting emigration to Palestine. This alienated non-Zionist Jews and created internal divisions, weakening Jewish communities against growing hostility.

Rabbi Shapiro argues that such actions did not shield Jews from persecution, but rather amplified their separateness and made them targets.

---

Modern Zionism and Global Anti-Semitism

In the post-Holocaust era, Zionism positioned itself as the global protector of Jews, with the State of Israel at its center. Yet, Rabbi Shapiro maintains that this strategy has failed—modern anti-Semitism has not disappeared; it has mutated.

Today, Jews around the world are increasingly blamed for the actions of the Israeli government. From college campuses in North America to protests in Europe, anti-Israel sentiment frequently spills over into hostility against Jews—regardless of whether they support Zionism.

Rabbi Shapiro notes that conflating Judaism with the Israeli state has made diaspora Jews vulnerable. Zionists themselves promoted this conflation by claiming Israel represents all Jews. Israeli Prime Ministers from Ben-Gurion to Netanyahu have declared Israel the "state of the Jewish people," not just of its citizens. This rhetoric, Rabbi Shapiro argues, has global consequences.

“When Israel bombs Gaza, Jews in Paris or New York get attacked—not because of their religion, but because Zionism claimed to speak for them,” he says.

In effect, Zionism has exported conflict, placing a political target on the backs of Jews worldwide.

---

Religious Jews Have Historically Opposed Zionism

Another core point in Rabbi Shapiro's thesis is that Zionism is not Judaism, and the vast majority of Orthodox rabbis in pre-state Europe opposed the Zionist movement. Groups like Agudath Israel, the Eidah Chareidis in Jerusalem, and the followers of the Satmar Rebbe warned that Zionism would bring spiritual assimilation and material danger.

These rabbis argued that Jews are in exile by Divine decree, and attempting to end that exile through political means was both a violation of Torah principles and a provocation to the nations of the world.

Rabbi Joel Teitelbaum, in his sefer Vayoel Moshe, went so far as to say that Zionism was one of the greatest threats to Jewish survival—not because it failed, but because it succeeded in convincing the world that a secular state could speak for a religious people.

---

Weaponizing Anti-Semitism for Political Ends

Rabbi Shapiro further argues that Zionist leaders have instrumentalized anti-Semitism to justify their policies. By presenting Israel as a haven from persecution, any critique of Zionism can be deflected as “anti-Semitism.” In doing so, they not only silence legitimate criticism, but also blur the line between hatred of Jews and opposition to a political ideology.

This manipulation, he warns, is deeply dangerous, because it delegitimizes real concerns about Israel’s actions and devalues actual instances of anti-Jewish hatred. Worse, it erodes global sympathy for Jews by making anti-Semitism seem like a political weapon instead of a moral outrage.

---

Conclusion: A Self-Defeating Strategy

Rabbi Yaakov Shapiro’s position may be uncomfortable for many, but it raises urgent questions. If Zionism was supposed to protect Jews, why has anti-Semitism persisted and, in many cases, worsened? If Israel speaks for all Jews, why are Jews everywhere being blamed for its actions?

Far from being a cure for anti-Semitism, Rabbi Shapiro argues, Zionism has provoked it, justified it, and even partnered with it. Instead of delivering safety, it has created a political identity that invites backlash.

Ultimately, Rabbi Shapiro calls for a return to Judaism as a spiritual mission, not a political agenda. The Jewish people, he insists, must be defined by their covenant with God—not by a flag, a state, or a military. Only by reclaiming this authentic identity can Jews find true safety, dignity, and peace.