When “One Religion” Becomes “Zionism”

Presented by the NYT’s The Daily: How An Accusation Against Jews Was Recast as “Zionism”

I was listening to The Interview, the New York Times podcast hosted by David Marchese, featuring Raja Shehadeh, a Palestinian writer and activist. It was rebroadcast on The Daily’s Saturday edition. The conversation itself was interesting; I recommend it in order to understand what is seen today by Palestinians as a moderate view, one that supports peace. But there was one moment- very specific- that genuinely stopped me cold. And it came from the interviewer.

At that point in the interview, the guest, Raja Shehadeh, made an extreme claim- not about Israel as a state, and not about Zionism as a political movement, but about religion.

“Palestine has always been a place for three religions… and now one religion is trying to dominate and say it’s the only one that is going to be allowed.”

This was not a slip of the tongue. It was a clear statement. One religion. Dominating the others. Deciding who will be “allowed.”

Historically, only two political frameworks in the Eretz Yisrael/Palestine provided full freedom of religion- equal protection for Jews, Muslims, and Christians alike. The first was the British Mandate. Whatever its colonial flaws, it explicitly enshrined equal religious rights. Before that, under Muslim rule, Jews paid special taxes for being Jewish, as did Christians (jizya, poll tax), and both often paid to access holy sites.

The second polity is the State of Israel, where freedom of religion is protected by law, Arabic is an official language, and religious practice is legally safeguarded. One can- and should- report on extremist groups and Jewish far-right violence, trying to destory this legal and political framework. But those are not the law of the land.

And yet, when Shehadeh framed his argument in explicitly religious terms- about Jews as Jews- the interviewer probably panicked. Marchese immediately intervened. Not to challenge the premise, or bring facts to the discussuin, but rather to reframe it to the political code he finds appropriate :

“Well, you know, what you’re describing is Zionism.”

This was not a neutral clarification. It was a substitution. A sweeping religious accusation was hurridly converted into a political one.

In doing so, Marchese performed two moves at once. First, he corrected his interviewee- implicitly telling him that the “problem” is not Jews but Zionists. Second, he smuggled in a definition of Zionism that bears little resemblance to reality, implying that Zionism is about religious domination.

He then went on:

“Can you talk about what your personal experience is of Zionism as a political project?”

This exchange was as biased as it was ignorant.

Zionism was born as a secular, national, and largely liberal movement. Its core claim was simple: that the Jewish people, like every other people, have a right to national self-determination - in their historical homeland. Even critics who argue that Zionism involved displacement or territorial conflict do not claim that it was conceived as a religious project aimed at subordinating Christianity or Islam. Zionism is not a theology. It never sought to dominate other religions. Moreover, the claim that Zionism sought total domination ignores a simple fact: Zionism repeatedly accepted partition and compromise.

The reframing worked- because it gave Shehadeh a clean exit:

“Zionism has made my life impossible all along..”

The original charge- religious domination- was never interrogated. It was laundered, redirected, and normalized under the safer, fashionable label of rejecting Zionism. It’s the zeitgeist: don’t say “the Jews,” just say “the Zios.” Facts? who needs them. Brought to you by the New York Times’ The Daily.

For anyone who wants to hear the full episode- and to be clear, this was only the most objectionable moment for me, not the only one, here’s a link:

https://youtu.be/zdtxwoP00N4?si=suO1J_DToslrOUa0