| One of the reasons so many are reluctant to address the genocide in Gaza is the fact that it is being carried out by “the only Jewish state” and that any criticism of Israel or its policies triggers, almost automatically, charges of antisemitism (I actually prefer the term anti-Jewish bigotry, since Arabs are also Semites). Being accused of antisemitism is particularly noxious for many in the West in light of the West’s abysmal record of anti-Jewish bigotry going back centuries, even millennia, culminating in the Holocaust. This phenomenon is exacerbated by the fact that the charge is not only weaponized cynically by Israeli politicians, but also because Zionism and the state of Israel openly speak of their Jewish identity and claim to represent all Jews worldwide. They speak not only of being a refuge to Jews from any future persecution anywhere in the world, but they also lay claim to the solidarity and material and diplomatic support of Jewish communities throughout the world, thereby implicating them in Israel’s policies. The organized Jewish community (except for some religious communities which are usually ignored by the press) has fallen into this pattern, and has in general supported the state of Israel, and allowed (sometimes demanded) that politicians take positions on Israel and Zionism based on the assumed position of their Jewish constituency. Zionist lobbyists openly boast of the power of the “Jewish lobby,” and AIPAC often speaks as if it represents all Jewish Americans even on issues where the Jewish American community is either divided, or has no specific position. The success of their advocacy is built on the presumed unanimity and powerful advocacy of “Jews.” The media, politicians, and even the church are conned into believing that any advocacy on behalf of Palestinians or against Israeli policies endangers their relationship with the Jewish community. In Israel itself, no pretense is made: the state legally declares itself to be the state of the Jewish people (and not the state of its citizens) and mandates that only Jews have certain rights, including the right of self determination. Over 50 other laws clearly institute Jewish supremacy in the state of Israel, and the common word for “fellow”’ or “guy” in Hebrew is “Yehudi” (a Jew). It is therefore difficult to maintain the distinction between “Jew,” “Israeli,” and “Zionist,” yet this distinction is of vital importance if we are to effectively fight anti-Jewish bigotry and to distinguish between the political (and moral) opposition to Israel and its policies from the vile noxious ideology known as antisemitism. Recently, the Israeli minister of culture and heritage speaking of the destruction in Gaza stated: “I want Palestinian children eighty years from now to know that this is what Jews did to them.” Given this complicated reality, how do we then take an ethical position on Palestine/Israel, without running into the real danger not only of being called antisemitic, but also of inadvertently contributing to increased anti-Jewish animosity worldwide? First of all, we must be clear where we stand: Anti-Jewish bigotry and discrimination is a vile, noxious and abhorrent ideology. It is a sin, and it should be repudiated and fought wherever it raises its ugly head. This position flows not only from any “shared values” or “shared scriptures” or “gratitude and appreciation for the Jewish roots of Christian scriptures and the genealogy of Jesus himself and his disciples,” but also out of our theological understanding of the unity of the Godhead, that all God’s children are equal, regardless of skin color, race, ethnicity or religion. All are created in the image of God and are worthy of respect and dignity, and any ideology or practice that discriminates against any group is to be denounced and repudiated. We reject anti-Jewish bigotry as we reject discrimination and racism against any other group. It is the basis for our rejection of racism, slavery, apartheid, and inhumanity. One of the tools for dealing with this issue has been the fight over the definition of “antisemitism.” While many have thought that it is wrong to single out hatred and bigotry against Jews, since all forms of racism, bigotry and discrimination should be equally abhorrent, yet the argument was made that anti-Jewish bigotry required a specific definition and efforts to combat it. One definition, the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition has been used intentionally to stifle Palestinian advocacy. It lists 9 examples of antisemitism, most of which were examples of anti-Zionist or anti-Israeli activities. Promoters of this definition actually boasted that it has had the effect of outlawing and silencing anti-Israeli activism. This definition has often been passed, without much discussion as a progressive attempt to fight hate speech and racism, particularly in colleges and universities. Even states and municipalities have passed the IHRA definition and made it part of their regulations. Where it was openly discussed, it has usually been rejected, or passed by executive orders of the governor of a state or the president of a University rather than the membership of elected legislative bodies. A better approach has been to promote and adopt the Jerusalem Declaration, which is a far more serious definition created after years of research and consultation, which makes clear not only opposition to anti-Jewish bigotry, but that such definitions should not include opposition to Zionism, the state of Israel or its policies. New York candidate for mayor, Zohran Mamdani, with a large and influential Jewish constituency has already stated that, once elected, he will repeal the adoption of the IHRA definition by New York. In Pennsylvania, an interfaith coalition led by Prayers for Peace is already meeting with legislators urging the passage of the Jerusalem Declaration in order to assert opposition to antisemitism, while avoiding the trap created by the IHRA definition. |
