*Note to readers: if you are only concerned with the contexts of the screenshot which was shown to you, and don’t care to read the entire article, you can skip down to the section “Supposed ‘bombshell’ Accusations,” and read down from there. While I suggest reading the whole article as it gives a fuller position of my convictions, I understand that time is precious. If you have questions after reading, feel free to email me at b.dixon.nc@gmail.com [end note]
It was recently brought to my attention that a woman has been going around the Young Republican National Federation (YRNF) slandering my wife and me. After direct attacks on my wife didn’t work, she began to claim that I am an antisemite and, therefore, people should not vote to re-elect my wife.
(Apparently in her world, husbands and wives never disagree.)
Frankly, I find this latest accusation just as absurd as the previous ones. But, I understand that things can easily be taken out of context, and those things may negatively impact my wife, or Jewish friends and acquaintances who may not be comfortable just reaching out to me directly about it, I want to address these accusations head-on.
When I was in the US Army, I came across the memoir of Yonatan Netanyahu, or Yoni, as his family and friends called him. For those unaware, Yoni was Benjamin Netanyahu’s older brother, the famous commander of the Sayaret Matkal who died leading the Raid at Entebbe.
Yoni was a patriot, a romantic, and a sort of modern warrior-poet; he struggled with his experiences in war and his life really resonated with me. When I was writing on WordPress in the early 2010’s, I wrote several articles about his life and the Arab Israeli Wars.1
when the 2014 Invasion of Gaza kicked off, having served in the US Army and French Foreign Legion,2 I decided to join the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF).
This would require converting to Judaism and three years in a Jewish community, at least those were the requirements at the time. I spent a little over a year attending a Reform synagogue: participating in Jewish liturgical services, studying theology, immersing myself in the culture, and enjoying the cuisine (Sephardi food is by far the best). I also built friendships within the Jewish community, many of which remain strong to this day.
In the end, I did not complete the conversion. Long story short, during one of my many discussions with the Rabbi, he, knowing my father to be a Christian pastor, asked point blank if I believed Jesus Christ was the Son of God. I could not deny Christ.
This closed the door on the IDF. But it’s also not exactly indicative of antisemitism.
But moving on to her precise attacks, I recently stated in a conversation the fact that Israel is an ethnostate. She tried to paint this as “antisemitic.” So, let’s unpack that.
Is Calling Israel an Ethnostate Antisemitic?
An ethnostate, is defined as “a political unit that is populated by and run in the interest of a specific ethnic group.”
For most of history, all states were ethnostates. The United States is a rare exception, often described as a "propositional nation" based on adherence to a particular ideology—a concept that emerged from the Enlightenment.
Before this, the only multi-ethnic states were empires, which, despite their diversity, were still ethnostates in practice. They were governed in the interests of the ruling ethno-religious group, while others were often denied full citizenship. That’s why we speak of the Neo-Babylonian Empire, where the Chaldeans ruled over other groups, or the Roman Empire, where Romans (and later Italians) held citizenship while Greeks, Phoenicians, Jews, Samaritans, Gauls, Celts, Galatians, and Armenians were largely excluded. We add the name of the ruling ethnos to identify which empire we are speaking of.
Now, let’s be clear about just how absurd this argument is that she’s making: Israel openly refers to itself as "The Jewish State." It is, by definition, an ethnostate—proudly so.
This principle has even been enshrined into Israeli law.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has explicitly stated, “[Israel] is the national state, not of all its citizens, but only of the Jewish people.” I have simply repeated what Israel itself, as well as many American Evangelicals, have long asserted: Israel, as a Jewish state, is an ethnostate, and its primary objective is the advancement of the Jewish people.
So, where’s the controversy?
Jewish friends and YR chapter chairs I’ve spoken to say that because Jewish Americans have faced increased threats and harassment since the invasion of Gaza, many well-meaning Evangelicals have overcorrected—attacking anything that isn’t zealously pro-Israel.
I’ve experienced this firsthand. At the YRNF Quarterly Board Meeting following the October 7th attacks, the organization proposed a statement pledging its “unequivocal support for Israel.” When the chair opened the floor for debate, I proposed a motion to remove the word “unequivocal.” I made it clear that while I support Israel’s right to defend itself, I do not offer unequivocal support to any nation—not even my own. I argued that including “unequivocal” would prevent us from offering legitimate criticism, such as condemning Israel’s bombing of the St. Porphyrios Greek Orthodox Church—one of the world’s oldest churches. The IDF had previously designated it as a safe haven for Christian refugees and has made no claim that Hamas was using it for military purposes.
We should be able to criticize such actions without withdrawing our overall support.
Some Evangelicals immediately accused me of being a racist and a traitor to America. Ironically, the one Jewish state chairwoman present stood up and said, “I have no problem with Ben’s amendment.”
And yet, that amendment is now being used to paint me as an antisemite—or, bizarrely, as someone “on the road to antisemitism,” whatever that means.
Supposed “Bombshell” Accusations
My wife’s opponent has been sending around a screenshot of a particular Facebook conversation which she deems particularly egregious. Now to be fair, a Jewish acquaintance who saw the screenshot took issue with how I phrased some of my argument (which we’ll address momentarily); however, in context, the issue is resolved.
It’s impossible that we define our terms. Far too often we assume that others define words the same as we do, and in sensitive conversations defining terms is especially important. That I didn’t define the terms I was using in a general, public conversation was a mistake. A mistake I will rectify now.
To start, the argument I was making was not a critique or condemnation of Israel, but a criticism of the immoral and hypocritical position of my opponent.3 In this argument I was pointing out that it was hypocritical to denounce one country as evil, while claiming that another country which does the same things is somehow good.
It’s a simple argument: If we agree that (A) is evil, and Nation 1 is evil because it does (A), then we must conclude that if Nation 2 does (A), it is likewise evil. When he disagreed, I pushed him: What if Nation 2 not only does (A), but (B) and (C) as well? Why does Nation 2 continue to be a “good” nation who simply does evil things, while Nation 1 is evil for doing (A)?4
In making this argument, Israel was Nation 2, and their serious mistakes were enumerated to drive home the point. This was a bad idea - not because what I said was wrong, but because my opponent was arguing in bad faith. It was less so the things Israel has done wrong that a Jewish acquaintance took issue with (regardless of how you feel about these incidents, they are credible, and some are being taken up in Israeli courts), instead she took issue with my statement that Zionism is an ethno-religious supremacist ideology.
Defining Zionism
Here is where defining terms becomes important.5 She, like many Americans, defines Zionism as “the belief in Israel’s right to exist.” This is incorrect. While this is certainly what the average American means when they speak of Zionism, properly speaking, the belief that a country has a right to exist or organize its own political affairs is called the right of self-determination.6 This is a universal concept which grew, broadly speaking, out of the Enlightenment and was eloquently defined and enshrined in law by our own Founding Fathers.
To be clear, I absolutely support Israel’s right to self-determination - it is a fundamental human right. But that’s not Zionism.
Zionism is a nationalism, born out of the nationalistic fervor which overtook Europe after the French Revolution. Every nationalist movement that arose in Europe was an ethno-nationalism. The Austro-Hungarian Empire didn’t collapse because individuals wanted rights; they fell because each ethnic group demanded its own state. What made Zionism unique, compared to the various ethno-nationalisms of their European neighbors, was that the Jewish people are not only ethnically and culturally distinct, but religiously as well. Thus, Jewish Nationalism, or Zionism, was born as an ethno-religious nationalist movement. This is not bad in and of itself, it simply expresses the unique heritage of the Jewish people.
There were, of course, radical Zionist, such as Ze'ev Jabotinsky and the Revisionist Zionism movement. Jabotinsky and his movement wanted to establish Jewish majorities on both sides of the Jordan and expand a prospective Jewish state into a Greater Israel. Interestingly, they allied themselves with Fascist Italy over and against the British. But these do not define the foundations of Zionism. By and large it was an ethnonationalist/ethno-religious nationalist movement like any other in Europe at the time.
As stated in the Footnote 5, we don’t have the time here to go groups by group, turning point by turning point. But the key turning point was the Six Day War, when a new Zionism began to take shape. For many years, this Neo-Zionism remained on the fringe, but beginning in the 1990s it began to gain influence.
Today, it is the ideology of many mainstream political figures, especially within the Likud’s coalition: Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Former National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, Former Interior Minister Eli Ishay and his Yachad party, Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich,7 the Religious Zionism party and others. Beyond this, the ideology has a deep hold in the ultra-orthodox community, settler groups, activist and student groups such as Jewish Front and Ronen Shoval’s Im Tirtzu group.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="
title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
World-renowned Israeli sociologist Uri Ram described Neo-Zionism as "exclusionary, nationalist, even racist, and antidemocratic." As uncomfortable as it may be to admit, there is a correlation between the rise of Neo-Zionism on the one hand and hate crimes and war crimes on the other. Neo-Zionism is the ideology driving young Orthodox Jewish Israelis to spit on Christians, to shout at them to “go home,” and to claim it is their duty to kill idolators. It is this ideology which led IDF soldiers to desecrate a Christian Church in Lebanon, staging a mock gay-wedding and pretending to sodomize one another on the altar. It is this ideology which not only leads IDF soldiers to gang rape Palestinian girls and prisoners,8 but for politicians to defend their actions, for crowds to attempt to break out the perpetrators when they’re arrested.
Neo-Zionism is a scholarly term meant to disentangle it from the secular Zionism of the 19th century which was so foundational to the establishment of the Jewish State - and rightly so. But those who ascribe to Neo-Zionism know it simply as Zionism, and these are the people in power right now in Israel. Neo-Zionist are the government; they control the military, police, and intelligence apparatus of Israel, much of the media and the ideology has swept through orthodox Jewish communities in Israel. When I say that the Israeli government ascribes to “an ethno-religious supremacist movement, commonly known as Zionism,” I am speaking of Neo-Zionism, or Zionism as it is currently, commonly understood by the majority party in Israel.
I want to be clear here: Neo-Zionism has nothing to do with the Jewish religion, and very little to do with the Secular Zionism of Israel’s founders. Like all extremist movements, it is an aberration, it disgraces the very thing is claims to honor. It is not only because of my love for Orthodox Christians that I find this ideology so detestable, but because of my own deep respect for figures like Yoni Netanyahu and his vision of Israel, for men like my grandfather who sacrificed so much to liberate the Jews of Europe.
Nor do all Israeli’s subscribe to this ideology - far from it!
There are many Israelis (perhaps even a majority) who recognize this ideology for what it is: another incarnation of Ze'ev Jabotinsky’s Jewish Fascism.
There are many journalists, activists, politicians, and everyday Israelis who expose and condemn the actions of the Neo-Zionist. One example is the current Israeli President, Isaac Herzog. Sure, he and I disagree on quite a bit in terms of policy, but he is a good and decent man who believes that citizens of Israel, regardless of their religion, should live in harmony and work together.
But Israelis need to speak up, lest they lose their national honor as so many nations have before them.9
The Need for Accountability
Look, I understand that Hamas exploits civilian infrastructure for military and propaganda purposes. I understand that they have little regard for innocent lives. I get it. Warfare and international relations have been key interests of mine for thirty years. I’ve followed this conflict my entire life—and, again, I went so far as to attempt conversion to Judaism to join the IDF. But the IDF is not infallible. When it makes mistakes, it must be held accountable. Why?
Because war is dehumanizing.10 It brings out the worst in people. The worst thing Israel could do is allow itself to adopt the same barbarism it condemns in its enemies. If IDF soldiers succumb to the brutalizing nature of war and commit atrocities without consequence, it normalizes such behavior. If Israel loses its humanity, it loses its moral high ground.
We’ve seen this in the Ukraine War. At the start, any act of indiscriminate killing or even looting was met with widespread horror and condemnation. Today? We watch drone operators toy with surrendering soldiers before executing them—cheering them on in comment sections. We see videos of Christians being beaten, maced, pistol whipped in their churches by police and say “whatever, they’re ‘Russian’.” Last week, I saw footage of Ukrainian troops beating two Russian prisoners before killing them—then posing with their bodies. And why wouldn’t they? The Russians aren’t viewed as humans; they’re “Orcs.”
This is what war does.11
War is so dehumanizing that it even desensitizes those who watch it from a distance—perhaps most of all. My issue, then, is not with Jewish people or even Israel as a state. My problem is with the idea that they, or any nation, is above reproach.
I have long said that part of being a patriot is calling out the flaws of my own nation so that it can live up to the values it espouses and be a better version of itself. Why would I apply any other standard to a foreign country?
If you truly support Israel, you should support accountability.
False Accusations Weaken Real Ones
False accusations of antisemitism dilute the seriousness of real antisemitic threats and attacks.
When legitimate concerns about antisemitism are drowned out by politically motivated or baseless claims, people become desensitized, making it harder to combat actual hatred against Jewish communities—and this is very concerning to Jewish friends and colleagues I’ve spoken to. By weaponizing antisemitism for personal or political gain, you ultimately erode trust, thereby granting cover to actual antisemites and legitimate threats on the Jewish community.
Now obviously, we should defend our Jewish friends when they are attacked. No person is responsible for the actions of a foreign nation, and Jewish Americans should not receive death threats, be assaulted, or discriminated against for the actions of a foreign country—regardless, frankly, of whether they support them or not. Anyone who knows my life knows I have no issue of putting myself in harm's way to protect others.
But that’s not what’s happening here.
Instead, because this woman so hates my wife and my wife’s integrity is so irreproachable, she’s making this desperate attack. Unfortunately, because this issue is so emotionally charged at the moment, people are willing to forgo reason and believe it.
What do I believe?
I have no issue with the Jewish people, and it’s absurd I even have to say this. I am an Orthodox Christian. I believe that every human being is a unique, living image of God—and as such should be treated with dignity.
While that might be a nice abstraction for many, this has clear implications for Orthodox Christians because of our teaching on icons (Gr. εικών ie., image). If each person is an icon of God, then the love and care I bestow on another person passes to God. “Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.” [Matt. 25:40] If I cannot hate a person, how could I hate an entire group of people? I cannot. Christ forbids it, calling us to pray even for those who slander, persecute, and assault us.
Am I anti-Israel? No. Do I consider myself a Zionist? No. I have no reason to be either. My commitment is to Truth, Goodness, Mercy, and Love. Wherever actions contradict these principles, I will speak out—regardless of who is responsible.
I am always willing to explain my positions, but I will not be pressured into taking a stance that goes against my conscience for political convenience. Nor will I retract legitimate criticisms of Israel—or any ally. Disagreeing with a nation's policies does not equate to hostility toward its people, and reducing the conversation to such accusations only hinders meaningful dialogue. No nation deserves unconditional support. No one should expect it.
Unfortunately, I no longer have access to the WordPress and have not been able to find it using search engines.
Early on in my service in the Legion, a few Eastern European men confronted me in the shower, calling me a dirty Jew - this was relayed by a German who spoke both Russian and English. That we were *in the shower* should reveal the reason they believed I was Jewish. I explained that this reason for their assumption was normal in America and done to most male infants at birth. Long story short, they didn’t want to hear it but fortunately a Swedish guy who had previously been the President of a 1% motorcycle club backed me up.
On a separate note, I likewise tried to go to Ukraine when the War in Donbass kicked off to fight against the Separatists in Donbass. At the time, the Ministry of Defense wasn’t accepting foreign fighters at the time and referred me to a “volunteer battalion” in Mariupol - the Azov Battalion. We spoke for about a week planning my trip and compensation in the case of my death, while I also gathered more information on who they were. Not much was available at the time, but it didn’t take long to figure out they were neo-nazis (the various Nazi symbols, speaking of Slavs as a slave race, photos of them doing Nazi salutes were kind of dead giveaways). As a result, I pulled out of the negotiations.
By opponent, I simply mean the other person in the debate/discussion. This should not imply that I view him as an opponent more generally.
The point of this argument is that nations are not evil, people and governments certainly commit evil acts, but evil has no essence, it is a negation; it is not a state of being, but a mode of willing. If you take the position that a thing is in and of itself evil, then you must admit that any person/government who does evil, is evil - regardless of your feelings. The only way to escape this is to fall into Nominalism, or moral relativism - which my opponent did. In short, one cannot be a nominalist and a Christian, as Christian morality is based in Who God is. But I digress.
The 150+ year developments which led to Zionism as it is defined today by many Israeli politicians, the ulta-orthodox communities and many settler groups of Israel is a long article in itself. To summarize it is an injustice to the story that needs to be told. We don’t have that kind of time here, so please forgive me for the abbreviated summary, especially as it will not be as clear as it is in reality.
Smotrich handed in his resignation Mar. 30, 2025. This is a good thing for Israel.
If your response to this was “so what, they’re animals,” congratulations, you are part of the problem.
Granted, they were before Oct. 7th, but the shock and horror of the attacks meant that internal struggles had to be put on hold. While those who had been protesting and calling for justice did the honorable thing, traded their signs for assault rifles and supported their country in its moment of peril, Neo-Zionist have used it to consolidate power, exonerate themselves for their crimes, and brutalize fellow Israelis for their faith. What’s most absurd is that it’s often the “ultra-orthodox’ who carry out these hate crimes - all the while refusing to fight for their country!
Been there, done that, got the colored ribbons.
I recommend What it is Like to Go to War, by Karl Marlantes; On Killing, by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman