Is it Antisemitic (part 2)?

Fatah’s children’s magazine Waed, issue 41, April 2022

A few weeks ago I sketched a framework for discussing antisemitism. In that post, I made two primary points: (1) that “antisemitism” is often too broad, vague, and value-laden a term to be useful in discussing acts and speech that target Jews; and (2) that understanding such acts and speech within a rubric “expressive harm” rather than definitions can be more helpful in analyzing and discussing them. The question ultimately should not be, “is it antisemitic?”, but, “does this speech have a disproportionate effect on Jews, and if so, is it a harmful one?” This is very similar to how we often approach “microaggressions” and speech that targets other vulnerable groups.

Applying the Framework

So how does it work? Over the past several months, two slogans used by protesters have been particularly under scrutiny. One is the association between “Zionists” and “genocide,” and the other is, “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.” Both have been called “antisemitic.” Most of those who chant them, though, vehemently deny that they are antisemitic. And so we get caught in a tug of war between “is too!” and “am not!” A different way of thinking might perhaps break through this impasse, not because everyone agree - some certainly will not! - but because it at least allows room for mutual dialogue and understanding by taking the temperature down a notch or two.

Israel, Genocide, and Antisemitism.

“Genocide,” as we saw in the previous post, has two types of meaning: legal and colloquial. Colloquially, it is a weaponized term; it is never good to be a committer of genocide. Since no legal body has actually determined that Israel has passed the legal threshold of “genocide” - and even if such a body did so, the standard international bodies are political entities rather than truly objective moral arbiters - as used by protesters the term is clearly colloquial. The most generous way to understand these accusations is that they are hyperbolic language reflecting the true pain and horror of watching a war being fought against an enemy that uses their own people as human shields. The least generous read is that the accusations are meant to bolster a case against the very existence of Israel as a Jewish state.

This particular charge is addressed in the IHRA definition on antisemitism. Among the types of acts and speech that might be deemed antisemitic are:

• Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.

• Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

• Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

Recent divestment groups have picked up on an old meme dating back at least to 1982 that Israel is committing genocide. The association seems to have originated when the IDF failed to act swiftly to stop the murder of Palestinians by Christian militias in Lebanon at Sabra and Shatila. The charge was incendiary and shook both Israel and the Jewish community. Calling the survivors of the mother of all genocides genocidal, while Holocaust survivors were still walking the streets, hit a particularly raw nerve. Which, of course, exactly what it was meant to do.

Jews are not a homogenous group. We are not all white, do not speak the same languages, and hold the same opinions. Some are born into a Jewish identity, some choose it, and others are labeled as Jews despite their own, different, identity. At the same time, American Jews do largely (although by no means universally) share some orientations. Most American Jews, for example, identify as having liberal political leanings and tend to belong to the Democratic party. An astounding 89% of American Jews (April 2, 2024) think that Israel’s reasons for fighting Hamas are valid, and about the same number believe that antisemitism is on the rise in America.

The vast majority of Jews support the Jewish state and, like the vast majority of Americans, do not think that Israel’s actions constitute “genocide.” Slogans such as, “Divest from Genocide,” are analogous to the question, “when did you last beat your wife?,” that is, it smears not just Israel but those who support Israel. It was, and remains, a charge meant to hit a nerve.

But for what end? Some who accuse Israel of genocidal actions are acting out of clear compassion for the innocent Palestinians who are being killed in the war. When that war ends, they will pack up their signs, relieved, go home, and protest other misdeeds around the world (like the Uhygurs). Most Jews, though, believe that this will be only a small minority of protestors. For some of the others, there will be no clear end to the “genocide” until Israel essentially ceases to be a Jewish state and gives in to all of Hamas’s demands. The intent is to isolate Israel in order to get it capitulate. This feels quite different than a simple call to “make love, not war.”

“From the River to the Sea, Palestine will Be Free”

Almost no ceasefire or anti-Israel protest seems complete today with chants or signs of “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.” Versions of this slogan were used by the Palestinian Liberation Organization in the 1960s and 1970s, to support the elimination of Israel as a Jewish state. It also clearly has that meaning in the revised Hamas Charter of 2017:

20. Hamas believes that no part of the land of Palestine shall be compromised or conceded, irrespective of the causes, the circumstances and the pressures and no matter how long the occupation lasts. Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea. However, without compromising its rejection of the Zionist entity and without relinquishing any Palestinian rights, Hamas considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of the 4th of June 1967, with the return of the refugees and the displaced to their homes from which they were expelled, to be a formula of national consensus.

The next section of the charter goes on to grudgingly accept a Two State solution as a temporary step to the elimination of Jewish sovereignty over Israel.

On the other hand, some of those who use the slogan today claim that it means that Palestinians should live in freedom and dignity throughout the area, and they suggest (although I am not sure if I have seen this explicitly stated) that it is fully compatible with a Two State solution.

The first understanding of the slogan, that it calls for the elimination of Israel as a Jewish state, would qualify as “antisemitic” under most definitions of the word. The second would not.

It should not surprise anybody that when the slogan is chanted in an angry tone by a mob, (1) its intent is in question, and (2) it has the potential effect of igniting actual violence (as we have actually seen on a few college campuses). Can there be another way forward?

Thinking Ahead

For me, intent - as can be intuited from actions, contexts, and choices - is almost more important than words when it comes to racism and antisemitism. People on opposite sides of an issue who share good intentions have space to dialogue. Those who have more nefarious intentions can never enter that space.

When today’s protesters act in ways that they know Jews regard with suspicion or fear, it is choice that signals bad intentions. If people really cared about supporting Palestinian dignity and autonomy (as most Jews in America and many in Israel do), they might work on gathering allies rather than using alienating slogans and methods. There are any number of catchy slogans that can capture this goal than “from the river to the sea.” There are ways to discuss forcefully the actions of the IDF in Gaza and the West Bank without resorting to charges of “genocide.” Martin Luther King, who carefully considered the situation on the ground, once stated that “when people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews.” For King, anti-Zionism was a form of racism. We need not even go that far simply to acknowledge the expressive harm against Jews that is on the rise.

The situation in Israel/Palestine is complex, and coming to a just solution (if such a solution is even possible, given that Hamas is not a political liberation movement but an Islamist terrorist organization motivated by religious ideology) will require painful negotiation. The Palestinian leadership has shown little willingness to compromise, and recently the Israeli government has moved toward that position as well. I do not know what the way toward a secure and dignified resolution looks like, but I am sure it does not run through mobs chanting slogans that they know are hurtful to the very people who share a commitment to peace.