Antisemitism is like crabgrass

A time for humility

A definition

“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

That’s the  IHRA definition (the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance). We’re using it first because we think it’s accurate, and second because it’s the definition used by most democracies (at least 44) and hundreds of US cities and universities. Here’s one article about its use: More than 1,000 global entities adopted IHRA definition of antisemitism. Here’s the US State Department page on it.  

We’re also aware that if you do an internet search, you’ll find hundreds of articles objecting to the definition and its examples. Most of the objections come from the political left but not usually those who are considered center-left. The most common complaint is that it might limit free speech. Some claim that it stops criticism of Israel – a false claim. Others more honestly say that the definition suggests that it is antisemitism to deny Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish homeland. We’ll touch on that below.

This piece is focused on antisemitism. It is not about the Israel – Hamas War. A note: when speaking in our voice, we use the word “antisemitism,” with no capitalization and no hyphen. When quoting others, we use the form of the word used in the original piece.

The increase

Antisemitic Attitudes in America 2024 - ADL

·      Anti-Jewish trope beliefs continue to increase, and younger Americans are showing higher rates.

·      Conspiratorial thinking and social dominance orientation are key predictors of anti-Jewish belief.

·      A significant percentage of Americans hold anti-Israel positions, but also support a Jewish state’s right to exist.

·      Individuals who held negative attitudes toward Israel-related policies, Israeli people, and Israel-oriented conspiracy theories were significantly more likely to believe anti-Jewish tropes.

·      Views of Hamas are also deeply concerning, with more than half of Gen Z expressing some degree of comfort being friends with a Hamas supporter.

Antisemitic incidents in the US​ – CNN

“Last year, the number of antisemitic incidents outpaced the all-time high set in 2022 by 140%.”

FBI Report - CNN            

“FBI Director Christopher Wray said Tuesday that antisemitism is reaching ‘historic levels’ in the United States. ‘This is a threat that is reaching, in some way, sort of historic levels,’ Wray said during a Senate hearing Tuesday. The FBI director said that was in part because ‘the Jewish community is targeted by terrorists really across the spectrum,’ including homegrown violent extremists, foreign terrorist organizations, and domestic violent extremists. ‘In fact, our statistics would indicate that for a group that represents only about 2.4% of the American public, they account for something like 60% of all religious-based hate crimes,’ Wray said of the Jewish American population.”

How antisemitism works

As we’ve read and reflected we’ve been struck by the descriptions of antisemitism. Descriptions that are less formal definitions and more a dynamic.

Antisemitism is like crabgrass.  We lifted the phase from a Politico article, The Losing Battle to Beat Antisemitism in the Age of Misinformation.  “Antisemitism is like crabgrass,” Oskar Knoblauch, a 98-year-old Holocaust survivor, responded. “It always appears after a rainy season. When it’s dry, you don’t see them. They reappear again. Sometimes, maybe in a small way, sometimes worse. We have to control it.”

A shape-shifting worldview that slithers writes Bari Weiss. “It is a shape-shifting worldview that slithers away just as you think you have it pinned down and, in so doing, stays several steps ahead of anyone trying to clobber it.” She says, “Anti-Semitism successfully turns Jews into the symbol of whatever a given civilization defines as its most sinister and threatening qualities. When you look through this dark lens, you can understand how, under communism, the Jews were the capitalists. How under Nazism, the Jews were the race contaminators. And today, when the greatest sins are racism and colonialism, Israel, the Jew among the nations, is being demonized as the last bastion of white, racist colonialism—a unique source of evil not just in the region but in the world. Whatever role ‘the Jews’ are needed for, well, that is the part they are forced to play.” (Bari Weiss, How to Fight Anti-Semitism) Progressives look at Jews and they see white people. The far right looks at Jews and the Jews are not white people. 

A highly infectious thought virus says Paul Johnson, a historian. An intellectual disease. In using the image of a virus he’s picking up on what happens when our system moves from one that is well and wholesome to unhealthy and weak. The virus reasserts itself.

Antisemitism is a conspiracy myth. “Conspiracy serves as the prism through which the antisemite’s view of the Jew is refracted…The antisemites, convinced that Jews use their wealth, power, and smarts to wreak havoc on the non-Jewish world, find the Jewish hand in any deleterious event in history. The antisemite begins convinced that Jews have engaged in a conspiracy and seeks to determine the precise nature of that conspiracy.  If something happens in society that I oppose for some reason, the Jews must be behind it.  But sometimes it works in reverse.  The conspiracist, seeking an explanation for some bad turn of events—whether it be COVID, political wrongdoings, or financial mishaps—looks for a group or an entity with the power, wealth, and malicious qualities capable of engineering this particular conspiracy.  Who would be evil enough to wish to wreck such havoc on society?”  (Deborah Lipstadt.)

There are other processes by which antisemitism functions.

The double standard

This is when we apply a different set of norms or standards in similar situations. It’s a common form of antisemitism and we’ve described some examples below.

A current example is seen in the position of some of the student protestors when asked by university leaders to enforce civil behavior in their encampments, especially around antisemitic statements. Routinely the response has been, “We’re not going to police one another.” This is coming from a group that has been quick to challenge any use of language that is seen as offensive when related to race, sex, gender, or a number of other statuses.

While many universities have long enforced limits on “hurtful” speech, an increasing number are now in favor of “free speech” that is hurtful to most Jews.

Another frequent example is Israel being accused of human right violations while refusing to criticize nations with worse abuses, such as China, Iran, and North Korea.

Some criticize Israel for having a state religion (Judaism) while being silent about the fact that Hamas and almost all the surrounding Arab nations also have a state religion (Islam). Islam is the official state religion in 23 countries, yet Israel is singled out for criticism as a Jewish state.

Between 2006 and 2023 the United Nations’ Human Rights Council issued 16 resolutions condemning North Korea, 14 directed at Iran, none against China, and 103 against Israel.

An interesting twist on the issue of double standards comes from Rabbi Uri Pilichowski. “Jews may hold themselves and Israel to a higher standard, but no one else has the right to do so. This standard is how the Jews have decided to judge their own behavior. It is for domestic use only. The larger world has its own set of standards and, of course, must apply it equally to all. The Jews’ decision to adhere to a higher standard does not give the world the right to deviate from its own standards, which it holds to be universally applicable.”   (“The Paradox of Jewish Double Standards,” Uri Pilichowski, Jewish News Syndicate.)

No space to be in - don’t stick out

“Antisemitism works by increasingly restricting spaces where Jews can feel welcome and comfortable, until none are left.” (Einat Wilf, a former Labor member of the Knesset.[1])

We saw this when the Nazis came to power in Germany. Gunther Stern, a young boy back then, describes his experience.  “My father called my brother what was called the gute stube, which was the best room in the apartment, and he said to us sit down boys have something to tell you. What he said was ‘don’t stick out, he who sticks out gets stuck.’ We took him seriously. He said, ‘be like invisible ink.’ In other words, what you are will someday come out again. But at this time fade into the crowd. (From Ken Burns’ The US and the Holocaust.)

In a recent poll, “Nearly half (46%) of Jewish respondents say they've changed their behavior due to fear.” “The survey also found that American Jews are uncertain about their place in American society. Nearly two-thirds (63%) of respondents say that the status of Jews in the U.S. is less secure than one year ago. That's up dramatically over recent years.” From The State of Antisemitism in America, American Jewish Committee.

Across the country we hear stories of Jews removing a kippah or star of David before going out, censoring themselves when someone says Israel is white and therefore racist, or being told that Israel is a colonialist nation and has no right to exist. There’s also an old and new quota system limiting Jewish access to top universities.

“There’s a profound sense of homelessness among liberal Jews in America.” (Steven Windmueller, Hebrew Union College emeritus professor of Jewish Communal Studies. US Jews recalibrating their identity.)

Yes, but

“In 1938 Americans are asked whether they think the persecution of the Jews in Germany was Jews’ own fault and two-thirds of Americans said partly or entirely. Something is happening to the Jews abroad and the inclination of a lot of Americans is to blame the Jews.” (The US and The Holocaust, Ken Burns.)

Deborah Lipstadt compared what happened to Salman Rushdie, after writing The Satanic Verses, with a common Jewish experience.  “While most of Rushdie’s Western critics did not feel that Khomeini had the right to issue his fatwa, they also blamed Rushdie for doing something that he knew would enrage Muslims who were willing and able to express their anger in acts of violence—as if Muslims are for some reason not expected to adhere to the rules of international law when someone insults them. This is something that has a bitter ring for Jews, as it is often used to rationalize antisemitism. “Yes, antisemitic speech and violence are wrong,” one version of the argument goes, “but how can you expect Muslims to feel and to act when Israel takes actions that oppress Palestinians?” The antisemitism manifested by some—and I emphasize some—European Muslims is part of a larger problem of integration. But unless Europeans address the problem strongly, unapologetically, and without ‘yes, buts,’ it will sink deep roots, fester, and grow. Ultimately, more than just people wearing kippot will disappear from the European landscape. ‘Yes, but’ is the top of the slippery slope of immoral equivalencies.” From Antisemitism: Here and Now. It’s worth noting that the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Chief Rabbi of Britain, and Jimmy Carter all made comments about how much they “understood” the cause of the fatwa and Muslim anger, instead of affirming the core values of liberal democracy. Lipstadt also noted, “In 1993, White House director of communications George Stephanopoulos declared: ‘We unequivocally condemn the fatwa. We do not believe this is a private matter between Mr. Rushdie and Iran. We do not believe people should be killed for writing books. We regard the fatwa as a violation of Mr. Rushdie’s basic human rights and therefore as a violation of international law.’ The New York Times put it most succinctly: “So let it be said again: Murder is not an acceptable form of literary criticism.”

Create in the public mind a hierarchy of groups

The hierarchy works in such a way that the Jews were far down the list. The rationale for the list would change over time – race, ethnicity, perceived influence in society, perceived wealth, religion.

Right wing antisemitism

Charlottesville, Pittsburgh, Poway, California—all have reminded us of the antisemitism of the far right. Marching with torches and attacking with AR-15s. It’s more open and violent than what we see from the left. It has its roots in neo-Nazi and Christian identitarian ideologies. It has an American lineage in the names of Henry Ford, Father Coughlin and Charles Lindbergh. It has various ideologies, such as the more recent Great Replacement theory, and those summed up by slogans—“Blood and soil,” “White Lives Matter,” “Jews will not replace us.”  Jews are seen as globalists and  internationalists. They are not really “white people.”

The right, as well as the left, often try to hide their anti-Semitism. Here’s Bari Weiss: “They insist that, as full-throated defenders of Israel…how can they possibly be anti-Semitic? But if Jews by and large support and admire Israel because it aims to be an exponent of liberal democracy in the Middle East, because it is the fulfillment of a biblical promise, and because two thousand years of history have shown definitively that the Jewish people require a safe haven and an army, right-wing anti-Semites “love” Israel for the same reason they despise immigrants: Israel solves the problem of the Jews in their midst. It helps that they imagine Israel as a kind of anti-Muslim Sparta, not a democracy with a sizable (nearly 20 percent) Muslim minority. ‘You could say that I am a white Zionist—in the sense that I care about my people, I want us to have a secure homeland for us and ourselves,’ Richard Spencer said in 2017.” (Bari Weiss, How to Fight Anti-Semitism)

Stephen H. Norwood claims that historically American Universities have also played a role in conservative antisemitism. “Harvard was involved in active steps that helped legitimate the Nazi regime in the West,” and was “indifferent to the prosecution of German Jews and indeed on numerous occasions assisted the Nazis in their efforts to gain acceptance in the West.” (The Third Reich in the Ivory Tower: Complicity and Conflict on American Campuses.)

.

Progressive antisemitism

Far left antisemitism seeks to delegitimize the state of Israel as a homeland for the Jewish people. The effort usually works at focusing on the faults of Israel in a manner that suggests it is an especially evil nation. This approach hides behind the language of liberal values about the poor and oppressed while working in concert with totalitarian and terrorist regimes and groups.  It’s worth noting that in the recent demonstrations the signs and chants are more about revolution and a Palestinian victory than they are about peace.

The efforts underway in the Episcopal Church to place negative labels on the only Jewish State are obviously aligned with left wing American and British politics. You just need to take note of the language of several resolutions and compare them with what we hear on the anti-Israel left.  We’ll spend a bit more time on this than we did on the right because it’s the source of what we’re experiencing in the Church.

Hiding the antisemitism. The approach on the left seems to be, “Simply say, ‘I’m not antisemitic,’ and then assume that ends the discussion.” Like a magic incantation, the words are said and what you see disappears. The inability to see and address its antisemitism makes it difficult to have a discussion with those on the left holding these views.  “I’m not antisemitic!” In many cases what that means in practice is, “I have redefined words, so that meanings and behaviors that once were considered antisemitic are now not antisemitic, at least in my own mind.”

Occasionally stories break through that illustrate what is usually kept hidden and unseen. For example:

At a 2017 rally sponsored by the University of Illinois campus chapter of the Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), speakers proclaimed that there was “no room for fascists, white supremacists, or Zionists at UIUC.” They claimed a “confluence of fascism and Zionism.” Both were “forms of racial supremacy.”  The participants chanted: “No justice! No peace! No war in the Middle East! No Zionists, no KKK, resisting fascists all the way.”[2]

More recently a student in the pro-Palestinian protests at Columbia said,  “Zionists Don’t Deserve to Live.” He had made the comments at a disciplinary hearing at Columbia, repeated them after that and then posted them on-line. The hearing had been called because of an earlier posting, “I don’t fight to injure or for there to be a winner or a loser, I fight to kill.” There’s more in the article. After being removed from the campus, and we imagine being read the riot act by other protesters unhappy with making visible what had been unseen, he said, “What I said was wrong…Every member of our community deserves to feel safe without qualification.”

For many who use or appreciate this method, when they hear of the ghost becoming incarnate, they say it’s an exception rather than wondering whether their views and behavior had nurtured it.

Now Israel’s very existence must be denounced.

Bari Weiss explains the “bargain” progressive American Jews are asked to make. “In order to be welcomed as a Jew in a growing number of progressive groups, you have to disavow a list of things that grows longer every day. Whereas once it was enough to criticize Israeli government policy, specifically its treatment of Palestinians, now Israel’s very existence must be denounced. Whereas once it was enough to forswear the Jewish Defense League, now the very idea of Jewish power must be abjured. Whereas once Jewish success had to be explained, now it has to be apologized for. Whereas once only Israel’s government was demonized, now it is the Jewish movement for self-determination itself…We like Jews just fine, they say, as long as they shed their stubborn particularism and adhere, without fail, to our ever-shifting ideas of justice and equality. Jews are welcome so long as they undertake a kind of secular conversion by disavowing many or most of the things that actually make them Jewish. Whereas Jews once had to convert to Christianity, now they have to convert to anti-Zionism…[A]nti-Semitism that originates on the left is a far more subtle and sophisticated enterprise. It’s typically camouflaged in language familiar to Jewish tongues and ears: the language of social justice and anti-racism, of equality and liberation.” (Bari Weiss, How to Fight Anti-Semitism.)

There’s a long history of antisemitism on the left beginning in the 19^th century. In the 20^th century it takes a form such as this: “We need, above all, to think about why some on the left have always seen Jews as a problem and why they have helped the idea of a ‘Jewish Question’ to re-emerge with such potency. At root is the thought that if antisemitism exists, it must have something to do with how Jews supposedly behave. That supposed behaviour may be described in different ways – sometimes it has an economic character, sometimes a social one, sometimes a political one. But what is common is the idea that Jews are to blame for antisemitism and that to protest against them is understandable, or even necessary…For both Stalinists and that part of the New Left, Zionism is a racist ideology that pits the interests of Jews against the interests of everyone else. Furthermore, the state of Israel is an integral part of the western imperialist power structure that exploits and oppresses the rest of the world and the Palestinians in particular, whose land Jews have plundered and colonized and whom they keep in a state of permanent subjugation.” “The shame of antisemitism on the left has a long, malign history”, Philip Spencer, The Guardian, April 1, 2028

Also see Left-Wing Antisemitism in the United States: Past and Present by Stephen Norwood. A review of the book” Most American Jews are politically progressive and are accustomed to thinking of antisemitism as an expression of right-wing ideology. Liberal Jews are often surprised and dismayed to discover how pervasive antisemitism, often thinly disguised as anti-Zionism, has become on the political left. In this brilliant work, Stephen Norwood traces the roots of the antisemitism of the left and discovers that what nineteenth-century German Social Democratic leader August Bebel called ‘the Socialism of fools’ has a long history on the left side of the political spectrum. This book should be read by everyone who refuses to acknowledge that liberal politics is perfectly capable of accommodating antisemitism. As Bebel knew, there is no shortage of antisemitic Socialist fools.” Benjamin Ginsberg, David Bernstein Professor of Political Science, Johns Hopkins University. Here is a short article by Stephen Norwood.

A campaign to delegitimize and boycott Israel. “Since October 7 and the launch of the Swords of Iron war, and against the backdrop of increased public unrest and a wave of protests branded as ‘pro-Palestinian,’ there has been a sharp uptick in the number of antisemitic and anti-Israel incidents in the West. These demonstrations are greater in scale and intensity than ever before, though the identity of the organizers of most of them comes as no surprise. As has been the case for the past two decades, the organizers are activists in civil society organizations. Many have a patently anti-Western agenda, camouflaged as promoting the rights of minority groups. They are part of the ‘red-green alliance,’ which is a vanguard of the campaign to delegitimize and boycott Israel (the BDS movement). They comprise Western, radical far-left groups, acting alongside organizations that support the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) and working in conjunction with political Islamist organizations…Over the past few decades, post-colonialist theories that emerged from prestigious campuses have flourished in the West. According to these theories, the ‘war on terror’ that the United States launched following the September 11 attacks was designed to recapture the Middle East. Various radical groups, which after the collapse of the Soviet Union sought a new cause, identified Israel – a liberal democracy that enjoys a close relationship with the US – as a symbol and easy target. Israel is portrayed as a colonialist settlement, operating a regime of ‘apartheid,’ in which the ‘white Israeli’ ‘oppresses’ the ‘oppressed’ Palestinians. The Palestinians are portrayed as the ‘indigenous people,’ victims of ethnic cleansing, land appropriation, and rights violations…In recent years, the crux of the debate over the campaign to delegitimize Israel has touched on the question of limitations to freedom of expression in the public sphere and the legal ramifications of these limitations. The debate barely touched on the cynical and dangerous way that radical organizations and terror groups abuse the public sphere under the guise of upholding human rights and rectifying social injustices.” (“The War in Gaza and the Domestic Threat in the West”, Ehud Rosen1 and Shahar Eilam, Institute for National Security Studies, November 15, 2023.)

Deborah Lipstadt in an interview said, “But I do think that the B.D.S. movement, at its heart—when you see what is really behind it, and the people who have organized it—is intent on the destruction of the State of Israel. If you look at the founding documents of the groups that first proposed B.D.S., they called for a full right of return, and, essentially, in practical terms, they’re calling for the destruction of the State of Israel. I think the ultimate objective of B.D.S. is not B.D.S. itself. If that were the case, we would all have to give up our iPhones, because so much of that technology is created in Israel. I think the objective of B.D.S., and especially the people who are the main organizers and supporters, is to make anything that comes out of Israel toxic.” ​(“Looking at Anti-Semitism on the Left and the Right: An Interview with Deborah E. Lipstadt,”  Isaac Chotiner​, The New Yorker, January 24, 2019)

But I’m not antisemitic! (an addition 5-9-24)

In a reference to a bill in the House of Representatives against antisemitism - “While it passed overwhelmingly, with bipartisan support, it gave Republicans a hoped-for opening to press their case that Democrats are soft on antisemitism: Seventy progressive Democrats voted “no,” with some worrying that it would inappropriately inhibit criticism of Israel. But the bill also ended up splitting the right: Twenty-one Republicans voted against it, saying that they feared it would outlaw parts of the Bible.” (“How Republicans Echo Antisemitic Tropes Despite Declaring Support for Israel” New York Times 5-9-24) The article highlights antisemitism from the right but does mention some from the left as well. What we found interesting were the excuses from both sides as they tried to rationalize and downplay their antisemitism. From the right there is the ancient “globalists” conspiracy with a claim that they mean all globalists not just Jews. And from the left a claim that they are only protecting free speech rights allowing them to criticize Israel while avoiding the actual concern from the Jewish community about the left’s tendency to question the legitimacy of the Jewish state’s existence. The Times reporters engaged in a bit of that word play themselves writing about “the idea of a Jewish homeland on disputed territory.”

Antisemitism in the Episcopal Church

“Lord Jonathan Sacks, former Chief Rabbi of the United Kingdom, describes anti-Semitism, or the attitude that denies the right of Jews to exist collectively as Jews, as a ‘virus that has survived over time by mutating.’ He continues, ‘And just as anti-Semitism has mutated, so has its legitimization. Each time…persecutors reached for the highest form of justification available. In the Middle Ages, it was religion. In post-Enlightenment Europe it was science: the so-called scientific study of race. Today it is human rights.’ Here one encounters anti-Semitism in the guise of human rights discourse that is focused on the policies of the State of Israel but is also often subtly critical of Jewish peoplehood. In the name of human rights, one sees Jewish history, memory of past trauma, and religious experience, including a devotion to a land that Jews were the first to call holy, challenged or repudiated. The Episcopal Church is not immune to this strain of anti-Semitism.” (David Michael Goldberg, “Antisemitism in the Episcopal Church.”)

Sacks also said, “Today the highest source of authority worldwide is human rights. That is why Israel — the only fully functioning democracy in the Middle East with a free press and independent judiciary — is regularly accused of the five cardinal sins against human rights: racism, apartheid, crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing and attempted genocide.”

Goldberg also points to the church’s double standard actions in the 2018 General Convention. “…holding the Jewish State to one standard and Arab authorities to another is unjust. Palestinian rights to homeland, self-determination, and security should not come at the expense of Israel’s rights. Resolutions did not consider Palestinian contributions to peacemaking, though peace is jeopardized by the refusal of Palestinian organizations, including the Palestinian National Authority, to recognize without equivocation Israel’s right to exist. Moreover, General Convention was silent on other human rights issues. No proposed resolution condemned regimes in the Middle East, South East Asia, and Africa that actively oppress Anglicans and other religious minorities. Only Israel was subject to censure. The double standard betrays a fixation with Jewish culpability.”

From a South African priest: “Throughout history, prominent church leaders have been the incarnation of the anti-Semitism of that age, preaching it in the Middle Ages, theologising away Jesus’s Jewishness under Nazism and ignoring Hamas in their liberation struggle narratives while also remaining silent about the rise of blatant anti-Semitism around the world.” (Listen carefully for the echoes of anti-Semitism, Rev’d Canon Peter Houston is a senior Anglican priest and canon theologian in the Diocese of Natal, October 27, 2023.)

Zionism – anti Zionism

“Zionism is the movement for self-determination and statehood of the Jewish people in their ancestral homeland, the land of Israel. By contrast, anti-Zionism rejects Israel as a legitimate member of the community of nations and denies the right for Jews to self-determination and to establish a state in the land of Israel.” (ADL website) Is anti-Zionism a form of antisemitism? Our view is that given the history of antisemitism and persecution it’s clear that the Jewish people need a nation state as a homeland. To refuse such a homeland seems to us to be a greater threat to the Jewish people than most of the other acknowledged expressions of antisemitism. This issue is at the heart of why there are people who want to change the IHRA definition of antisemitism because they want to be free to not simply be critical of Israel, but to deny its right to exist.

This is also from Bari Weiss who attended Columbia University. “By the time I got to college, in 2003, this view of Israel—not as the culmination of two thousand years of Jewish yearning, or as the repatriation of an indigenous people, or even as a safe haven for the Jewish people, but as the last bastion of white colonialism in the Middle East—had conquered departments across campus that had embraced postmodern, postcolonial theory. Nowhere, however, was the demonization of Israel and of Israeli Jews more aggressively pursued than in the school’s Middle Eastern studies department.” (Bari Weiss, How to Fight Anti-Semitism)

“The former chief rabbi of the United Kingdom, Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, has put it plainly: ‘In the Middle Ages Jews were hated for their religion. In the nineteenth and early twentieth century, they were hated for their race. Today they are hated for their nation state, Israel.’ All three types of hate insist on the same thing: ‘Jews have no right to exist collectively as Jews with the same rights as other human beings.’ ” (Bari Weiss, How to Fight Anti-Semitism.)

Weiss notes that there has long been a fringe group of anti-Zionist Jews. German socialists made a case that Jews needed to stay in Europe to fight for the working class. Some religious Jews have argued that there should be no state in the Holy Land until the Messiah comes. As best as we can figure out it appears that between 80 – 95% of American Jews think Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish homeland. It’s difficult to be precise because polls differ in their use of terms and much reporting has an ideological bent for or against Zionism. What is clear is that even though American Jews are overwhelmingly pro-Israel, most also have disagreements with the current government and/or the way the war is being fought. There is also significant concern about the settlements in the West Bank, including methods of restraining or eliminating the settlements while providing enough security for Israel. Regardless of the disagreements, though, they don’t disagree about whether Israel should exist. In that sense they are all Zionists.

Addition on 4/15/24. Yossi Klein Halevi offering a primer of how antisemitism manifests itself. “What antisemitism does is it takes the Jews—‘the Jew’—into the symbol of whatever it is that a given civilization defines as its most loathsome qualities,” A video (less than 3 minutes)

From Jonah Goldberg in The Thin Line Between Antisemitism and Anti-Zionism “I think Halevi’s answer is extremely useful. But I think there are other factors at play. A few off the top of my head. 

• Israel is vulnerable, or at least it is perceived to be. People might actually care about far, far worse oppression elsewhere but which seems unfixable. But if America could just be convinced to yank its support for Israel, or if Israel could be convinced to admit millions of Palestinians in some “one state solution,” many think, the “problem” of Israel could be fixed. 

• Israel is successful. And its success is an insult to the numerous failures of its neighbors. Indeed, today—the day after Israel declared its independence in 1948—is Nakba Day. Nakba means “catastrophe” and for many Arabs in the region Israel’s success in fending off five invading armies, surviving, and ultimately thriving, is humiliating. The whiners see Israel as a constant reminder of their humiliation. 

• Israel is confident, and civilizational confidence in Western values is an affront to those who think Westerners should be ashamed.

• Israel is capitalist (with the usual welfare state bells and whistles), and there are some who just can’t abide acknowledging any proof of concept when it comes to capitalism. 

• And, last, Israel is Jewish. Obviously, this fact looms very large for committed antisemites of all ideological stripes. But I think Israel’s Jewishness is an affront to some for other reasons as well. Jews, the world’s oldest oppressed minority, are problematic not because they have survived, but because they have thrived.

Pin a label on the Jews

One aspect of the effort to delegitimize the existence of Israel comes in the form of redefining words and lowering the threshold of what is believed to fit certain categories. It’s like a new, malicious game: Pin a Label on the Jews—genocide, apartheid, occupier, racist, colonizer, and so on. What is going on with the need to mark Israel with a negative identity label instead of simply describing the behavior being criticized?

The same forces get involved in attempts to legitimatize the BDS movement on free speech grounds while ignoring the origins and aims of that movement. In response, in 2019 the German Bundestag declared that “the pattern of argument and the methods of BDS are anti-Semitic.” The New York Times reported, “The nonbinding vote said the campaign to boycott Israeli products, along with the movement’s ‘Don’t Buy’ stickers, recalled ‘the most terrible chapter in German history’ and revived memories of the Nazi motto ‘Don’t buy from Jews.’…‘The pattern of argument and methods of the B.D.S. movement are anti-Semitic,’ the resolution stated, vowing not to fund any organizations that question Israel’s right to exist, call for a boycott of Israel or actively support B.D.S.”

In 2012 and 2015 the Episcopal Church made it clear that we did not endorse divestment or boycotts, and asked Episcopalians to choose investment instead. In 2018 and 2019 that changed to the delight of BDS. Sadly, the Episcopal Church has given cover to the BDS movement. ​The Church’s confusion, or doublespeak, showed in the Executive Council’s action in 2019. “The Church does not support the global boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign, but we do take seriously the rights of human beings to live free of human rights violations,” said Bishop Doug Fisher, chair of the committee on corporate social responsibility.​ So, while saying we don’t endorse BDS we do what BDS desires. Who better understands the way antisemitism works in the real world – the Germans or the Episcopal Church?

The Episcopal Church pinning the label of genocide on the Jewish state

Will General Convention follow Executive Council’s lead and pin the label of “genocide” on the Jewish state? Maybe because we’re Anglicans we’ll try to hide our shame and just say it’s “potential genocide.” But attaching that label, in any form, on Israel would be cruel and a reversal of reality.

The word “genocide” was created in 1944 by Raphael Lemkin to describe the Nazi’s policy of systematic killing in the Holocaust. He was a Polish Jew.

The parties to the war in the Middle East with a policy of genocide are Iran and Hamas. Israel has no such policy. There is a great loss of life. Many, in their horror, may want to label Israel with “genocide” instead of saying, “I think too many people are being killed.”

An alternative to labeling is to specifically describe what concerns you. In many ways that’s a more powerful course of action. You might use the State Department’s “2023 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices” to see how that is done and even make use of its examples.  Because some wanting to label Israel are antisemitic, they will resist the use of these documents because the practices of Hamas and the Palestinian Authority are shown to be so awful in themselves. Report on Israel    Report on The West Bank and Gaza.

What is genocide?

Genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

• Killing members of the group;

• Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

• Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

• Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

• Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

“The intent is the most difficult element to determine. To constitute genocide, there must be a proven intent on the part of perpetrators to physically destroy a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. Cultural destruction does not suffice, nor does an intention to simply disperse a group. It is this special intent, or dolus specialis, that makes the crime of genocide so unique. In addition, case law has associated intent with the existence of a State or organizational plan or policy, even if the definition of genocide in international law does not include that element.” UN Website

We should note that there are other crimes under international law that are serious but not the same as genocide. These include war crimes, mass killings, ethnic cleaning, and crimes against humanity.

The intimidation campaign (added 5/27/24)

To intimidate is “to make timid or fearful : frighten. especially : to compel or deter by or as if by threats. tried to intimidate a witness.” We can see such an effort in the campaign against anyone challenging the antisemetic effort label Israel with the word genocide. An article in the New York Times by James Kirchick exposed the crusade in the publishing world. (“A Chill Has Fallen Over Jews in Publishing.” (5/27/24)

“Over the past several months, a litmus test has emerged across wide swaths of the literary world effectively excluding Jews from full participation unless they denounce Israel. This phenomenon has been unfolding in progressive spaces (academia, politics, cultural organizations) for quite some time. That it has now hit the rarefied, highbrow realm of publishing — where Jewish Americans have made enormous contributions and the vitality of which depends on intellectual pluralism and free expression — is particularly alarming. … The real objectives behind the cynical weaponization of the word “genocide” and the authoritarian insistence that anyone who disagrees with it is an enabler of one are to shut down debate, defame dissenters and impose a rigid orthodoxy throughout the publishing world. It is a naked attempt to impose an ideological litmus test on anyone hoping to join the republic of letters — a litmus test that the vast majority of Jews would fail.”

Three thoughts:

From Bernie Sanders, “The word genocide is something that is being determined by the International Court of Justice.”

Take the time to view Ken Burn’s The US and the Holocaust. Ask yourself, is this what you really think is happening in Gaza?

There is something especially cruel in labeling the state that rose out of the world’s response to the Holocaust as being guilty of genocide.

Be still before the Lord * and wait patiently for him (Ps 37:7)

We wonder if the church might offer something different from the noise of the world.

In Gaza is the noise of war. Men and women battling each other with missiles and bullets. In the universities there is the noise of angry voices and at times hateful voices. We shout the labels at one another – genocide, antisemitic, Zionist, anti-Zionist, apartheid, occupier, racist, colonizer, terrorist, The lines have now been crossed and we have seen some violence on our campuses. From our history we know such violence can move into greater violence. We are not in our right minds. There are too many hearts of stone.

Within ourselves we know that the noise isn’t an answer. We know the labeling isn’t the answer. A General Convention statement will not change the hearts and minds of many.

And then there are the humble questions. What if we end up feeding the world’s antisemitism by what we do? What if we are simply mistaken and the labels are overstated? What if we are caught up in our emotions and not thinking clearly? Have we really researched this enough to make such a claim? Have I read a book on antisemitism? 

What if our witness looked more like this?

The New York Times reported that the Episcopal Church gathered in convention in Louisville has set aside its business and will spend the day in listening, fasting and silence. The morning will be spent listening to one another about the Israel – Hamas War, both the war itself and its impact upon America. Norms have been established. Each person may have up to a minute to speak. There will be a minute of silence after each speaker. Speakers will not raise their voices. At noon the Holy Eucharist will be celebrated. The afternoon will be spent in silence. Some may simply sit or walk in silence; others may read material on the history of antisemitism and the conflict with a preference for writings that offer a perspective different from their own.

Yes, we know that’s not going to happen, but some may be inspired by the image.

For a time we could incline the ear of our heart and simply listen. Cardinal Basil Hume, when Abbot of Ampleforth, would tell his monks, “Take God seriously: take other people seriously; but never, never take yourself seriously.” We might apply that to ourselves before we pronounce judgment on others.

Humility

Perhaps the path of humility is ours on this matter. To forget ourselves just a bit, to listen to the voice of the bulk of the American Jewish community about what they see as their needs. Including submitting ideas such as those below to them for comment and improvement. A humility that calls us to see through the eyes of God. We are Benedictines who hear our brother saint calling us to humility in stages. We begin as we pray that God’s will may be done in us. The end being where we attain to the perfect love of God which casts out all fear. So, might our beloved friends gathered in convention pray with us that God’s life be our life and that we might make a beginning by acknowledging what it is that we fear within ourselves in our insistence and impatience.

We wonder if now is the time for our church to enter into the task of engaging our own antisemitism freely and fully. Her are a few steps that come to our minds.

1.     Remove the offending passages from our Holy Week liturgies. Don’t remove them from the scriptures or the Daily Office, but replace them in our primary liturgies. Or pick up on the work of our Roman Catholic friends and use a reading that proclaims, “a carefully excerpted lection that presents the Johannine passion narrative almost in its entirety but elides certain polemical elements.”  It is time to stop talking and to act upon our ongoing participation in antisemitism in liturgy.

2.     Allow our efforts around antisemitism to stand as significant and independent works. Stop the kind of language that amounts to us saying “we are against hate.” Allow some things to have particularity.

3.     Set aside funds for historians to research and write about the ways in which we have engaged in and at times fought against antisemitism. Pay special attention to the statements and activities of the church, in its corporate life and in the works of Episcopalians in the institutions of society, around the Holocaust. The role of Episcopalians in the US State Department during that era requires specific attention.

4.     Provide a course of study and reflection on antisemitism that can be used in our parishes. This could be created by a working group of educators drawn from this church and from the larger Jewish organizations.

5.     In this convention set aside all efforts to humiliate and delegitimize the Jewish state. In humility to remove the beam from our own eyes first. An action that may help us see more clearly.

6. Reflect on the words of Pope John XXIII in 1963: “We are conscious today that many, many centuries of blindness have cloaked our eyes so that we can no longer see the beauty of thy chosen people nor recognize in their faces the features of our privileged brethren. We realize that the Mark of Cain stands upon our foreheads. Across the centuries our brother Abel has lain in the blood which we drew, or shed tears we caused by forgetting thy love. Forgive us the curse we falsely attached to their name as Jews. Forgive us for crucifying them a second time in their flesh. For we know not what we did.” (added to the posting 10-15-24)

This abides,

Sister Michelle & Brother Robert

About Brother Robert, OA & Sister Michelle, OA

More on Antisemitism

10 Tough Questions on Antisemitism Explained, American Jewish Committee

From Right to Left and In Between: Jew-hatred Across the Political Divide, US State Department, Comments of Ambassador Deborah Lipstadt

Look at Ken Burn’s The US and the Holocaust. See how the antisemitism built bit-by-bit. Notice the mobs in front of Jewish stores. See the university students burning Jewish books. – And please , just for a moment consider whether the same old hate is again shaping a nation.

Benedictine Balance and Social Ethics “So we shift about from being the Republican Party at prayer to being the left of the Democratic Party at Mass. The Apostolic tradition of allowing your faith to influence your voting and civic life may even seem desirable to most parishioners but in the end the depth and solidity of practice wins out. We don’t know what we don’t know. Humility and listening is always appropriate.”

---

---

[1] Bari Weiss, How to Fight Anti-Semitism

[2] Matthew Stein, “Students for Justice in Palestine Defends Violence against Pro-Israel Groups, Calls Them ‘Fascists,’ ” College Fix, September 17, 2017. Lipstadt, Deborah E.. Antisemitism: Here and Now. Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group.

---