Daniel Rosen argues that the term 'Zionaphobia' should be widely adopted to describe hostility toward Zionism that often serves as a socially acceptable vehicle for antisemitism. He contends that the word 'Zionist' has increasingly replaced 'Jew' as a label used to justify targeting individuals, businesses, and institutions, blurring the line between political critique and prejudice.

Drawing on the advocacy of Judea Pearl, Rosen maintains that supporters of Israel have erred by defensively distancing themselves from the term Zionist. Instead, he suggests that accusations of Zionism should be recognized as potential markers of bias, shifting the focus from defending identity to calling out bigotry. He compares this strategy to the impact of terms that have helped distinguish legitimate criticism from hostility in other social contexts.

Rosen cites a recent boycott campaign targeting a luxury conglomerate executive labeled simply as a 'Zionist' as evidence of collective punishment based on perceived support for Jewish self-determination. He argues that no other national movement faces similar treatment and concludes that popularizing the term 'Zionaphobia' would restore moral clarity and reframe the debate around prejudice rather than politics.