Canada's troubling conflation of anti-Zionism and antisemitism

Canada's Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree and Justice Minister and Attorney General Sean Fraser released the federal government's first progress report on its National Commitments to Combat Anti-Semitism on Sept 24, 2026. Buried in the report is a significant assertion: "Anti-Semitism, which includes anti-Zionism, is not always obvious." Elsewhere, it calls for institutions to recognise "contemporary manifestations of anti-Semitism, including anti-Zionism".

The government is right to take antisemitism seriously. Jewish Canadians should not face threats, harassment or violence because they are Jewish. Anti-Zionism can also become a vehicle for antisemitism: "Zionist" can substitute for "Jew", Jews can be blamed collectively for Israel's actions, and old conspiracies can be repackaged as political commentary.

But saying anti-Zionism can be antisemitic is different from saying antisemitism includes anti-Zionism.

For many Jews, Zionism is closely connected to history, identity and self-determination. It is also a political movement involving sovereignty, territory and competing claims to land. Jews themselves have disagreed about Zionism since its emergence. For Palestinians, it is inseparable from displacement, dispossession and the Nakba. Opposition to Zionism, by itself, does not establish hostility towards Jews.

The wording matters because this is not merely an academic debate. The report discusses training for police, prosecutors, educators and public servants. It identifies the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition and Canadian handbook as foundations for federal efforts against antisemitism.

The government stresses that IHRA is not legally binding and does not criminalise expression. Nevertheless, definitions acquire practical force when institutions use them to investigate complaints, discipline students or assess employees. Institutions can constrain free speech and academic freedom without criminal prosecution.

A report released four days later by the US Commission on Civil Rights offers a striking contrast. Its bipartisan investigation unanimously concluded that campus antisemitism is a serious civil-rights problem, documenting harassment, threats, vandalism and exclusion.

Yet the commission also drew a line Ottawa is blurring. It distinguished discrimination based on Jewish ancestry or national origin from opposition to Israel or Zionism. Even offensive anti-Israel or anti-Zionist rhetoric, it recognised, can remain protected speech.

Kenneth Stern, who led the drafting of the predecessor text to IHRA, has warned about this problem. In material submitted to a Canadian Senate committee, he criticised the binary proposition that "anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism", alongside its mirror image, "Zionism is racism". He also questioned governments treating Zionism as essential to Judaism.

He is concerned that institutions may place a contested phrase on the "bad side of a line" and condemn anyone who uses it. Antisemitism is too complicated to address by consulting a glossary of politically contested words.

Courts have encountered similar problems. In Students for Justice in Palestine v. Abbott, a federal court in Texas found that students were likely to succeed in showing that university policies incorporating IHRA imposed unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination and chilled protected speech. The court did not invalidate IHRA; it questioned the connection between political viewpoints and disciplinary rules.

In Britain, former University of Bristol professor David Miller successfully argued that his anti-Zionism constituted a philosophical belief protected under the Equality Act. The university's appeal failed in 2026. It neither endorsed his politics nor protected everything said in anti-Zionism's name. Protecting a belief is different from endorsing it.

The Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism and the Nexus Document likewise recognise that discourse about Israel and Zionism can become antisemitic without treating opposition to Zionism as inherently so.

In their UCLA Law Review article, "Defending Jews From the Definition of Anti-Semitism", law professors Itamar Mann and Lihi Yona identify another danger: definitions tying Jewish identity too closely to Zionism can marginalise anti-Zionist and non-Zionist Jewish traditions. The possibility of antisemitism does not establish its presence.

Government should also avoid reinforcing an association it ought to challenge. Treating Jews as collectively responsible for Israel, or assuming they necessarily identify with the Israeli state, is itself a familiar feature of antisemitism. Equating opposition to Zionism with hostility towards Jews risks reproducing that assumption.

Canadian universities illustrate the institutional stakes. Justice Mary Lou Benotto's external review of Toronto Metropolitan University recommended IHRA as an educational and policy framework. Yet she declined to recommend formal adoption of the Arab Canadian Lawyers Association's definition of anti-Palestinian racism, partly because it incorporates contested historical and political propositions.

There is an asymmetry here. If institutions should hesitate before incorporating contested propositions about the Nakba and Palestinian indigeneity into policy, the same caution should apply to Zionism.

Canadian law already addresses hate propaganda, discrimination and harassment. In Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v. Whatcott, the Supreme Court distinguished expression exposing a protected group to "detestation" and "vilification" from expression that is merely offensive or repugnant.

None of this gives anti-Zionism a free pass. Threatening Jews, blaming them collectively for Israel's actions or recycling antisemitic stereotypes demands a response. But the conclusion requires examining what was said, who was targeted, the circumstances and the evidence. An accusation should not substitute for proof.

These distinctions protect democratic rights. Students, academics and citizens must be able to debate political ideologies and advocate Palestinian rights without opposition to Zionism alone establishing bigotry. Equally, political language cannot excuse anti-Jewish hatred.

Ottawa could avoid much of the problem by changing a few words. Instead of saying antisemitism "includes anti-Zionism", it could say anti-Zionism can manifest as antisemitism.

Canada can confront anti-Jewish hatred without having the government declare opposition to a contested political ideology inherently bigoted.