Israel and Palestine

Sometimes antisemitism is expressed by those expressing a critique of the state or government of Israel. When antisemitism is expressed by those advocating for the rights of Palestinians, this harms Jews and also harms Palestinians by unfairly tarnishing their cause as motivated by antisemitism instead of genuine concern for Palestinians. Sometimes, antisemitism is expressed by those supporting the Israeli government, and that support for the Israeli government is often cited to disprove their antisemitism. Paradoxically, antisemitism is also sometimes expressed as “philosemitism,” especially among evangelical Christians who believe Jews and Israel will play important roles in bringing about the “Rapture,” a desired end to life on Earth. If the speaker holds state power or controls an army, their use of antisemitism is substantively more dangerous than the case of a speaker who does not, regardless of their political goal.

This is an antisemitic trope often reinforced by the political right (like when former-president Donald Trump referred to Israel as “your country” to a room full of American Jews at the White House); by those who blame all Jewish people for actions of the State of Israel or use the term “Zionist” as a stand-in for Jewish people;or by President Biden when he claimed that “no Jew in the world is safe without the state of Israel.”

While there is often an attempt to conflate criticism of the Israeli state, government or military with antisemitism, research shows that an overwhelming majority (91%) of American Jews believe that it is not antisemitic to level such criticism.

Palestinian partners have shared that they are often assumed to be “antisemitic until proven otherwise”—this is dehumanizing and harmful. Like all people, Palestinians have the right to articulate their own humanity, needs, desires, demands, and aspirations. When people who are or claim to advocate for Jewish safety make this presumption, it tarnishes efforts to address antisemitism as reactionary and racist and harms the credibility of those working to end antisemitism. No one should have to pass a litmus test in order to be deemed worthy of safety, dignity, and belonging.

Jews are a diverse community and hold a range of views on all of these and many topics. Making this assumption, or presuming any kind of opinion until a Jewish person proves otherwise, feeds into a troubling “good Jews” vs “bad Jews” dynamic in which Jewish people are judged as worthy of safety, dignity, or belonging based on proving adherence to a particular set of political beliefs. This is dehumanizing and serves to further isolate Jewish people.

Research shows that Americans do not have a shared understanding—and most have no understanding—of what this term means. It is also important to note that most people who consider themselves Zionists in America are not Jewish—there are nearly twice the number of members of a single evangelical Christian Zionist organization, Christians United for Israel (10 million), than the entire population of American Jews (approx. 5.8 million).

Some efforts to codify a definition of antisemitism into law (including the International Holocaust Remembrance Association [IHRA] definition) or limit people’s right to participate in boycotts or protests have the effect of damaging the right to free speech. These efforts damage Jewish communities, all minority groups, and our democracy. It is useful to refer to these efforts as “gag legislation.

It is helpful to talk about the basic human needs and aspirations that are shared by Palestinian and Israeli people followed by exploring the ways in which they do not always have the same ability to fulfill those needs and aspirations. By expressing a core value of shared humanity, while also drawing attention to structural imbalances of power and privilege, you help audiences understand how solutions to address structural problems can benefit all people in the region.

Failing to do this leaves the audience to decide what you think should happen to the group that isn’t mentioned. Many audiences will assume you either don’t care about the people from that unnamed group, or they do not exist in your desired future because they have been killed or expelled. This may sound extreme, but for people who have or are currently facing existential threats, these fears are very present— there are political and military leaders who actively and explicitly support genocidal policies toward Jewish Israelis or Palestinians. It’s easy to allay these fears by explicitly naming both Palestinians AND Israelis in your vision for the future, regardless of what that vision looks like.

It is useful to show how any demands, especially those toward the Israeli government, are consistent with commonly held values and expectations of all states. It is still possible to discuss how the Israeli-Palestinian context is unique while maintaining that the basic expectations of states to protect human rights and democracy are the same across identities and geographies.