On June 1, as reports emerged of a terrorist who firebombed twelve people on Boulder’s Pearl Street Mall because he wanted to “kill all Zionist people,” my mother asked me a challenging question: “Why do people still talk about ‘Zionism’?”

“Israel’s been a country for 77 years,” she continued. “I thought Zionism was the movement to create that country. Why does it still sound like a debate?”

She’s right. Israel is a fact, not a theory. No other country gets treated like its right to exist remains forever questionable.

As a law professor who has researched the connection between anti-Zionist rhetoric and antisemitic violence, I’ve published on how terminology can enable real-world harm. Boulder just experienced what happens when words lead to violence.

The uncomfortable truth is that “anti-Zionism” has become more than political criticism. It creates a false dichotomy that makes Israel’s existence uniquely debatable among world nations, resonating with antisemitic tropes that make Jewish lives expendable. No other country faces organized movements questioning its fundamental right to exist using ideological terminology like “anti-Russianism” or “anti-Frenchism.”

This distinction matters because it creates what I call a “rhetorical license” for violence. When Israel’s existence is framed as an ongoing political question rather than an established fact, it implicitly suggests that “any means necessary” might be justified to “solve” this “problem.” The suspect in Boulder’s attack clearly felt his violence was righteous political action.

Boulder City Council member Taishya Adams’ response perfectly illustrates this dangerous dynamic. While all eight other council members signed a statement condemning the attack as antisemitic, Adams refused unless it was recharacterized as merely “anti-Zionist.” Worse, she described the terrorism as “vigilante justice” that we should expect when “leaders aren’t held accountable to war crimes.”

This isn’t just wrong. Adams’ position is morally indefensible. The terrorist explicitly stated he wanted to “kill all Zionist people” and then attacked peaceful demonstrators, including an elderly Holocaust survivor, at a humanitarian vigil for kidnapped people. This is antisemitism.

Plus, the vast majority of Zionists are Jewish, so wanting to kill Zionists is ethnic and religious targeting of Jews with only the thinnest veneer of political criticism. This is Jew hatred.

Remember, the victims weren’t at a political rally supporting Israeli policies. They were participating in Run for Their Lives, a humanitarian organization that explicitly states they “don’t protest” but instead “focus on humanity.” When someone firebombs people advocating for kidnapping victims, that’s not “vigilante justice” (as Adams called it) or even political protest. That’s a hate crime.

What appears to be Adams’ pattern of discrimination against Jewish residents, including blocking on social media members of the same group that was later attacked, demonstrates how antisemitic rhetoric becomes institutionalized through seemingly legitimate political channels.

The solution isn’t to silence criticism of Israeli policies, which remains both legitimate and necessary. Rather, we need “post-Zionist” thinking. Israel’s existence is a settled historical fact. You don’t need to be a “Zionist” to support Israel’s existence any more than you need to be a “Bismarckian” to support Germany’s.

Other nations created through similar circumstances — Pakistan, Bangladesh, Ireland — aren’t still described in ideological terms decades later. They simply exist, facing normal political criticism without existential challenges to their legitimacy.

Boulder has an opportunity to lead by distinguishing between criticism of specific Israeli policies and challenges to Israel’s fundamental right to exist. The former is normal democratic discourse; the latter has proven to enable violence.

Boulder’s 23,000 Jewish residents deserve the same security other groups take for granted. When rhetoric consistently depicts Jewish national identity as inherently problematic, it creates an atmosphere where terrorist attacks feel justified.

My mother’s question wasn’t just about semantics. It was about safety. Boulder’s response should include rejecting terminology that enables violence while preserving space for legitimate political dialogue. Jews don’t have to be anti-Zionist to deserve protection from terrorism.

Seth C. Oranburg is a law professor at the University of New Hampshire Franklin Pierce School of Law. His recent article, “Beyond the Ivory Tower: Confronting Antisemitism, Anti-Zionism, and Free Speech Through Firsthand Observation and Engagement,” is available online.