

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
History will not look back kindly on those demanding investigations of educators who dare to teach about Palestine during a documented genocide.
As a long-time anti-Zionist activist and retired teacher, I submitted a Public Records Act request to the California Department of Education for copies of all formal complaints, filed from October 7, 2023 to May 26, 2026, alleging discrimination, harassment, intimidation, and bullying that was so “severe” and “pervasive” as to violate federal or state law in California schools.
If a local education agency (LEA), a school district or county office of education, receives a complaint—a Uniform Complaint Procedure (UCP)—the LEA must, within 60 days, conduct an investigation, interview parties involved, and decide whether to order “corrective action.” Sometimes the UCP ends there. If, however, the complainants are dissatisfied with the LEA ruling, they may appeal to the California Department of Education (CDE).
I reviewed the appeals.
The CDE lacks authority to discipline school personnel, and the appeals I reviewed did not recommend teacher discipline. Teachers, however, have been told by their school districts to remove their keffiyehs and steer clear of stating as fact that Israel exemplifies “settler colonialism.” If an LEA or CDE finds a complaint has merit, it may order school districts to implement teacher training in antisemitism in consultation with a Jewish or Israeli organization. These orders open the door for Zionist organizations like the Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Committee to teach teachers that criticism of Israel is antisemitic and discriminates on the basis of national origin.
Teacher and Union del Barrio organizer Ron Gochez said the district’s edict that teachers remain silent in the face of a US-subsidized genocide was like telling teachers in Nazi Germany to take a neutral stance on the Holocaust.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in employment, education, and public accommodations based on someone’s birthplace or ancestry—but does not prohibit criticism of a sovereign state, which is protected speech according to the American Civil Liberties Union.
The CDE’s release of files reflects the department and school districts’ tendency to conflate anti-Zionism (opposition to Israel) with antisemitism (bigotry toward Jews for being Jewish). Under AB 715 (D-Zbur) legislation that establishes an antisemitism coordinator to police instruction and teacher training, this confusion could get a lot worse because AB 715 incorporates the US National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism, which promotes the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition and examples that conflate criticism of Israel with antisemitism.
Teachers and their allies can, however, revolt: March on Sacramento, challenge Zionist teacher training, file their own complaints, and collectively teach Palestine across school departments and districts.
The following is a review of some of the CDE’s cases addressing allegations of antisemitism or discrimination against Jews or Israelis.

In 2025, the principal of Mountain View Los Altos High School banned popular Lebanese-Palestinian American comedian Sammy Obeid after he cracked jokes about Israel at an after-school on-campus event in 2025 hosted by the Muslim Student Association (MSA). The school investigation report (IR) read, "During the event, the comedian made antisemitic remarks: about the Israeli Prime Minister getting cancer, calling the Prime Minister a supervillain, and how Israel does not believe in abortion so it can bomb more Palestinians.”
Months earlier, on November 21, 2024, the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and then-Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for crimes against humanity in Gaza, including “starvation as a method of warfare, murder, persecution, and other inhumane acts.”
Nevertheless, the district concluded, after berating the Muslim students for inviting Obeid—that the comedian’s performance was antisemitic. The CDE agreed and ordered the district to further revise its guest speaker policies to include strict vetting and get-off-the-stage intervention should an administrator believe the speaker’s conduct discriminated against a protected group on the basis of ethnicity, nationality, immigration status, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, age, and physical or mental disabilities.
P.S. For the record, abortion is legal in Israel as long as women obtain approval from the Israeli Pregnancy Termination Board.
In another example of conflation, the CDE ordered (11/24/25) San Ramon Valley High School to deliver teacher training on antisemitism to all social studies teachers after the department ruled a teacher’s class statements were proof of discriminatory bias against Jewish and Israeli students. The department’s fact finding said the teacher told students that Israel was committing genocide in Gaza. Hardly breaking news. Human Rights Watch, B’Tselem, the International Association of Genocide Scholars, Doctors without Borders, and the United Nations International Commission of Inquiry had all determined Israel was committing genocide in Gaza.
Nonetheless, the CDE said the appeal had merit because the teacher did not cite sources and present an opposing viewpoint. The Department ordered San Ramon Valley High School to provide the CDE with evidence by January 30, 2026 that the school had delivered training from someone not affiliated with the school district to ensure that classroom instruction “does not promote a discriminatory bias.”
The Institute for the Understanding of Anti-Palestinian Racism (IUAPR) defines anti-Palestinian racism as a form of racism that “silences, excludes, erases, stereotypes, defames, or dehumanizes Palestinians or their narratives.”
A CDE ruling involving New Haven Unified School District might serve as an example of erasing the human rights and worth of Palestinians. After teachers in the summer 2025 Ethnic Studies Social Justice Academy (ESSJA) presented a slide deck describing actions by Israelis against Palestinians as potentially constituting “genocide, ethnic cleansing, and settler colonialism,’ the department said instruction lacked adequate balance and historical context, and cast Israel in a negative light. The department acknowledged that the slides for students also discussed the horrific impact of the Holocaust, the ancient connection of Jews to the land also claimed by Palestinians, and how “the Israeli government is separate from innocent Israeli/Jewish people who stand for justice,” but still...
The department then ordered the school district to train ESSJA teachers and administrators in the “obligation to comply with Education Code 51500, which states that a teacher shall not deliver instruction, and a school district shall not sponsor any activity that promotes a discriminatory bias.”
Points for the MAGA team.

Rank and file Oakland educators circulated an Open Letter in spring 2026 calling on the district “to resist the concerted attacks by political groups who slander as 'antisemitic' anyone who criticizes Israeli apartheid and genocide or Zionism.” Yet, the Oakland Unified School District, facing a lawsuit from the CDE, still mandated teachers watch and interact with an Anti-Defamation League 20-minute video “Antisemitism: What Do Educators Need to Know,” which defines antisemitism as “marginalization and/or oppression of people who are Jewish based on the belief in stereotypes and myths about Jewish people, Judaism, and Israel.”
The ADL training stands in dramatic contrast to a teach-in rank-and-file Oakland teachers organized in December 2023, two months after October 7, as Israel dropped 2,000-pound bombs on Gaza, one of the most densely populated areas on Earth. Objecting to district resources from Zionist-funded organizations, the teachers provided workshop participants with a recommended list of books, films, and lessons.
Across the bay, in San Francisco, in the fall of 2024, a dozen teachers declined to participate in district antisemitism training with the American Jewish Committee, a Zionist organization that boasts on its website, “We stand up for Israel.” Teachers instead chose to attend professional development with PARCEO, a non-Zionist organization anchored in the belief that ending antisemitism is part of an intersectional fight for collective liberation of all people.
Down in Los Angeles, teachers and community members rallied (5/16/26) in front of the Downtown Business Magnet to protest the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) decree that ethnic studies and social studies teachers remove “Stop Genocide” posters and Palestinian and Black Lives Matter flags, as well as undergo teacher training on the use of “neutral terms” to describe sensitive topics, including Israel’s slaughter and starvation of Gaza.
Teacher and Union del Barrio organizer Ron Gochez said the district’s edict that teachers remain silent in the face of a US-subsidized genocide was like telling teachers in Nazi Germany to take a neutral stance on the Holocaust.
In another act of resistance, K-12 Legal Defense, led by attorney Liz Jackson, and San Francisco law firm Leonard Carder, LLP, filed a motion (5/11/16) to intervene in Brandeis v California on behalf of a group of 10 California families—Jewish and Palestinian parents and students enrolled in public schools.
For teachers walking a tightrope under the watchful eye of an AB 715 enforcer, there are some lessons that lend themselves to a “both sides” debate: South Africa vs. Israel at the International Court of Justice or Zionists vs. non-Zionists on school board adoption of the IHRA definition and examples of antisemitism. In many instances, however, the “both sides” approach fails to acknowledge the power imbalance between Israel and Palestine to leave students confused.
History will not look back kindly on those demanding investigations of educators who dare to teach about Palestine during a documented genocide. Nor will history applaud those who conflate criticism of Israel with antisemitism in lawsuits against states and school districts.
History has taught us that Jews are safest in societies and political systems that pursue true safety for everyone who faces marginalization and hate.
During an election season, it’s natural to take sides—that’s what elections are for. But taking sides doesn’t have to mean dividing the Jewish community, or isolating Jews from the broader community around us.
As the Executive Director of Jews United for Justice and the JUFJ Campaign Fund in Washington, DC and Maryland, I lead a group that has worked for more than a quarter century to ensure that everyone in our region—no matter our religion, where we come from, how much money we have, or what we look like—can live with freedom, safety, and belonging. Unfortunately, in DC, we just witnessed primary elections that saw national political polarization impacting us locally. Disagreements and concerns within the Jewish community are intersecting with local electoral politics—in ways that I fear could leave us more divided and less safe. But there is another path forward.
The JUFJ Campaign Fund endorses candidates who we believe will use their voices and their offices to build a more just region for all of us, including Jews. In this month’s DC Primary election, all seven of the progressive candidates that we endorsed won. That includes Janeese Lewis George, the winner of the Democratic Primary for Mayor, and soon-to-be Councilmember Aparna Raj, both of whom have also been endorsed by local chapters of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA).
Given DSA’s anti-Zionist positions, for some Jews, DSA’s backing is enough to warrant labeling these politicians as a threat to our community. Yet for myself and our organization, our personal experiences of these candidates could not be more contrary to that image.
When we feel alone and misunderstood, every disagreement can seem like a threat. Yet I know, from these past 20 years, that the way through this anxiety is relationships.
All of our endorsees, including Lewis George, Raj, and others endorsed by DSA, have shown up for my colleagues and me individually, our organizations, and their own Jewish constituents. They’ve cited our community’s needs and concerns as important to them, and recognized our community as part of their winning coalitions on election night. Even—and especially—when we have had disagreements, we have remained in relationships that allow us to recognize each other’s humanity and to build a strong Jewish presence in our shared political work.
At JUFJ’s community seders this spring, we hosted a dozen candidates for local and statewide office in DC, Montgomery County, and Baltimore. These candidates were Jewish and non-Jewish, ones who had received our endorsements and ones who hadn’t, DSA members and not, of many races and ethnicities—and they all came together to retell the Passover story and connect it to the struggles we face here in our region. I’ve seen these candidates build relationships and create space for conversation with our Jewish community over many years, and throughout this campaign season. And these relationships bear fruit during hard times.
After the terrorist attack against Temple Israel in Michigan this March, a non-Jewish, DSA-endorsed candidate wrote to one of my colleagues: “I saw the news coming out of Detroit and just wanted to say I’m thinking of you. It means a lot to be able to organize alongside you and others in the Jewish community to create a vision for a multiracial democracy where we’re all safe together. Hope you're doing ok.” Another non-Jewish DSA-endorsed elected official called all the senior rabbis in their jurisdiction on October 8, 2023, and has since worked to arrange additional security for Jewish institutions after antisemitic violence. In DC and Montgomery County, our endorsed candidates in elected office have voted time and time again to support funding for Jewish nonprofits and providing security grants for places of worship.
When I started at JUFJ in 2008, I didn’t see antisemitism as one of the pivotal challenges to address in our region. Today, that has changed. We’ve made dismantling antisemitism a key piece of our ongoing work, including working with candidates and elected officials to help them gain a better understanding of antisemitism, how it affects us, and what they can do. Unfortunately, we are living through a time when some politicians and community leaders attempt to build their own power by fueling antisemitism and exploiting divisions within our communities. They want Jews to feel isolated and alone. But isolation is not a path to safety. Anger and resentment is not a strategy.
When we feel alone and misunderstood, every disagreement can seem like a threat. Yet I know, from these past 20 years, that the way through this anxiety is relationships. Building and maintaining relationships with people who are different from me means that I have people to reach out to for a better understanding of our differences. As the great Black activist and musician Bernice Johnson Reagon put it, “Coalition work is not work done in your home.” To build coalitions with people who are different from us, we must resist the urge to isolate—despite fears and disagreements.
As DC’s next mayor and other progressive and democratic socialist candidates across the country take office, we in the Jewish community have a choice ahead of us. We can treat them as potential threats—even as they say they are working to build a city where everyone can thrive. Or, we can consider them to be potential partners and allies, despite any differences—and engage openly and honestly with them on that basis.
History has taught us that Jews are safest in societies and political systems that pursue true safety for everyone who faces marginalization and hate. That is why our movement here in the DMV has endorsed candidates who are committed to tackling antisemitism, and who are also looking out for my Black, brown, immigrant, and low-income neighbors. When we look out for and talk to each other, only then can our society be a place where all of us can live with respect and dignity.
With Jewish identity focused on its ethnic nation-state rather than a worldwide people gifted Torah and obligations, its majoritarianism and contempt for others shows our vulnerability—as all other groups—to vice.
Separating the meaning of Jewish identity and learning, distinct from the Israeli state and its underlying doctrine, is worthwhile work.
It's also urgent work, overdue. This is a maniacal, genocidal post from Israel's Minister of National Security Itamar Ben-Gvir:
For every tear of an Israeli mother, a thousand Lebanese mothers must weep. All of Lebanon must burn!
Repulsion from Israel's actions naturally affects how Jews are seen in the world, how we walk among others in the world—and ironically, for Zionists, validates their conception of the gentile world as forever hostile to Jews.
The existence of the State of Israel, the merger of Judaism with Jewish nationalism, has unavoidably changed what being a Jew is.
Identifying with a state perpetually in conflict, we retreat to the protection of our litany of noble sufferings, protecting from facts, from seeing ourselves as cruel or hurtful. Or—even—silly, annoying, not so significant.
Zionist theoretician Ze’ev Jabotinsky wrote in 1923 of the way that the Jewish state would have to be constructed, that “it is utterly impossible to obtain the voluntary consent of the Palestine Arabs for converting ‘Palestine’ from an Arab country into a country with a Jewish majority.”
Colonization would have to continue “only under the protection of a power that is independent of the native population—behind an iron wall, which the native population cannot breach.”
When Jabotinsky wrote this, Jews were immigrating to Palestine under British protection to fulfill the League of Nations Mandate promise of a yet-to-be defined “Jewish homeland” there.
Population "transfer" to create a Jewish majority state was envisioned by Zionist leadership, from founder Theodor Herzl onwards.
The United Nations Palestine partition plan of 1947 and resulting civil conflict provided the opportunity for Jewish militias and then the Israeli army to target and empty communities—to become sites for Jewish settlements with Hebrew names.
Israeli statehood on May 14, 1948 was accomplished by dispossession of most of the Arabs of Palestine—the expulsion of 750,000 Arabs from what would become Israel. This is called the Nakba (catastrophe) in Arabic.
Those Palestinians remain exiled despite a pledge from Israel to the United Nations in 1949 to accept returning refugees, as part of their admission as a member state.
The “restoration” of our sovereignty inflicted a catastrophe on Palestinians which will be part of Jewish history forever.
The creation of the State of Israel is presented as necessary Jewish self-assertion.
In September 1948, Israeli diplomat Abba Eban wrote that in a “just world” consultation and agreement would have been preferred. “But the world is more realistic than just. The doctrine of ‘accomplished fact’ has been entirely vindicated against that of ‘prior consent.’”
That doctrine forces for Jews a necessity of either identifying with Israel, or maintaining the identity of “Jewish-not Zionist,” an awkward thing to maintain while well-provisioned Jewish organizations present Zionism as Judaism.
That doctrine also destroyed Jewish communities across the Middle East and North Africa, and as far as India. Exercising naked power to force Arabs from their homes to privilege Jews in Palestine poisoned the place of Jews who lived for many centuries as citizens in neighboring societies.
Thinking of the vulnerability and degradation of Jews in the past, I struggle to reconcile those moments with this moment of Jews as a menace—and Jewish nationalism as a personal imprisonment.
The Zionist movement which descended on Palestine to “ingather the exiles” is now a state dedicated to a philosophy of Jewish redemption by violence, “an admixture of ultranationalism, religious mysticism, and racial superiority,” as described by Albert Einstein, Hannah Arendt, and others in a 1948 letter to The New York Times, of the faction that is now in control of Israel’s psyche.
Israel operates with a logic in which opponents to the Jewish state intend a Holocaust—mindless, causeless enemies as in the Passover or Purim or Hanukkah stories.
While most Jews in the diaspora live in accommodation and cooperation with gentile co-nationals, Israel has sacralized and militarized the “they always turn on us” belief.
We live in two models of Jewishness—the Jew living in civil cooperation with gentiles, and the militant Jewish supremacist in Palestine.
The contradiction of those two models of Jewishness makes us a problem to ourselves and others, with no clarity.
Complicating this is our belief in the grandeur of our own culture and learning.
As a child, I was buoyed by stories of Jewish learning and achievement—unlikely persistence through the ages—uniqueness.
I felt I was one of a fine, special group.
I also absorbed the other, paired, narrative of Jewish history. In the ritual reading of the Haggadah text each Pesach, I was reminded that we were enslaved in Egypt, and that in every generation They rise up to destroy us. And we survive, achieve, and show our high quality.
The theme of Jewish life is that we were chosen for a great mission, and have been persecuted since.
In these narratives, living a Jewish life is fulfilling the endowment of Torah and generations of scholarship, earnest and humane— targeted by malice, by jealousy from peoples less… fortunate? Not Jewish.
It may be that feelings Jews have about gentiles are as problematic as prejudices gentiles have against Jews. We suffer from not only how gentiles may see us, but limitations on how we see non-Jews.
Mitch Abidor, in the magazine Jewish Currents, describes a passage in Philip Roth’s novel Portnoy’s Complaint about a non-Jewish girl who tosses a flaming baton and catches it, and and its significance to the “nice Jewish boys in the stands." Portnoy observes that:
there was still a certain comic detachment exhibited on our side of the field, grounded in the belief that this was precisely the kind of talent that only a goy would think to develop in the first place.
Legendary Forverts newspaper editor Abraham Cahan wrote in his novel, The Rise of David Levinsky, of Talmudic education (an experience Cahan had shared with his character during his youth in Lithuania). The process of extended reasoning and disputation in religious study seemed the acme of human ratiocination:
"Can you fathom the sea? Neither can you fathom the depths of the Talmud," as we would put it. We were sure that the highest mathematics taught in the Gentile universities were child's play as compared to the Talmud.
This feeling of higher thought as a specifically Jewish achievement is useful to surface in discussion of how we see our not-Jewish fellows.
Torah study may be mostly a treasure of the observant now, but the habits and outlook of study and productive disputation persist. Might the assumption of superlative Jewish quality also?
To accept the World-Against-the-Jew construct, one must accept the idea that there is a unique quality to Jews.
Our religion revolves around identity, descent from tribes in a substantive relationship with the true God. When we pray, we are praying to a god that particularly cares that we are Jews doing the praying.
The central prayer of Judaism is the Shema:
Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One.
The Yiddish phrase "pintele yid," Jewish spark or kernel, expresses the belief that there is an irreducible, distinct core of Jewishness that is in a born Jew, observant or secular or ignorant.
The story told about converts is that their nefesh (soul, spirit) was there at Sinai to hear Moses tell God’s covenant with his people..
This resolves Judaism as an embrace of Torah—fudges the membership story, in truth.
Is “Jew” a coherent national category, as we include Indians, Ethiopians, Yemenis, Poles, and Romanians?
When devotion to Torah is the center of this identity, it does not require ruling from imagined supremacy.
The poison brewed when mixed with a colonial enterprise designed at a time Britain could design a plan “natives” had to accept.
The Israeli government recognizes Israeli citizenship for Jews, Arabs, and others, but then records the “nationality” of the citizen separately, so that I, an American citizen, in their system share the same “nationality”—“Jewish”—as an Israeli Jew.
Ultimately the identity is based on magic, superstition, folkways, and spiritual truth. Am I required to believe in the existence of "The Jewish Nation" as the term is meant in the Zionist state?
The Zionist proposition for the world’s relationship with Jews is, “Love us, love our land.” This is articulated in their claim, “Anti-Zionism is antisemitism.”
In 1906, Jewish educator Solomon Schechter said that he feared assimilation of Jews, loss of identity, “even more than pogroms.” He wrote that in the Jewish “exile,” the Zionist project could form “the great bulwark against assimilation… an opposing force.”
As we Jews "fight for our existence," is it because diminishment of our self-held special place in the world feels like death?
American Jewish organizations promote connection with the State of Israel to nurture Jewish identity of the young.
Identifying with a state perpetually in conflict, we retreat to the protection of our litany of noble sufferings, protecting from facts, from seeing ourselves as cruel or hurtful. Or—even—silly, annoying, not so significant.
A popular 1970s Israeli song had the refrain, "The Whole World is Against Us.” It concluded,
The whole world is against us...
This song was taught to us
By our old fathers,
And we too shall sing it,
And after us—the sons.
And great-grandchildren of great-grandchildren will sing
Here in the Land of Israel,
And anyone who is against us
Can go to hell!
The whole world is against us…
It’s not clear how we wish to be regarded.
At the Enlightenment and revolutionary emancipation of Jews, converting from toleration to equal citizenship, there was a loss of community autonomy, statutory difference—the loss of definition as members of a nation within the nation.
Even stigmatized, community autonomy had its advantages. Jewish communities had their own recognized governance, internal taxation, regulation of their own personal affairs, and laws, courts.
That concept of modern citizenship as individual equality conflicts with Jews residing as their own self-governing polity with representatives to the larger society, as was often the practice. This is sacrificed with equal citizenship, where all live under the same law.
Max Nordau, speaking to the First Zionist Congress in 1897, made interesting comments that when Jews lived isolated in ghettos, they had society of their own. He says that while Emancipation had its intoxication, it left Jews in Western Europe in “misery” because they could not thrive as Jews among Jews.
We are people; people do evil.
Acceptance becomes a stressor; the more we become like our fellow nationals, the more desperate to maintain a difference.
By the logic of Nordau, the most salutary circumstance for Jewish happiness is isolation from the larger society—or living as the majority the Jewish state achieved in 1948.
UK Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, in a 2016 address on antisemitism, presents the existence of Israel as a Jewish human right. “Antisemitism means denying the right of Jews to exist collectively as Jews with the same rights as everyone else.” (Emphasis added.)
Now, we've acquired the belief we're only meant to be happy if we rule our own “Jewish” land? Or only be safe if we do? The rationale toggles between the two, that Israel represents Jewish safety or Jewish fulfillment.
Jewish history treasures—curates—narratives of persecution. The meaning of that must be considered. If we have grievance, contempt, or pity for those outside our circle, are we healthy?
For me, there has been not just a feeling of kinship but a higher expectation of Jews, expecting less of gentiles as a rule. Prejudice absorbed growing up is painful to examine.
The origin story of our people—chosen by God to a special mission of glorifying Him and his laws—may instill confidence, a sense of identity, but I think is “worth another think” as a problem when, as Peter Beinart points out, it is empowered as a state.
He writes, “In most of the Jewish world today, rejecting Jewish statehood is a greater heresy than rejecting Judaism itself.”
Beinart's comment suggests that many Jews now have Zionism as their faith—and faiths are based on taking certain premises as fact. It may be a creator of a particular sort, or in this case a belief in the Jewish people as a reconstituted modern nation-state. In any case, faiths can't be debated.
Beinart, religiously observant and well-grounded in Jewish study, called his book Being Jewish After the Destruction of Gaza, and gave it the subtitle, A Reckoning. The necessary reckoning he forecasts for Jews I think will be ugly and with false starts and detours, and will necessitate re-evaluations of how we prejudge gentiles.
We number perhaps 16 million worldwide, and we Jews are at the pivot point of the USA’s wars on Iran, Iraq, and all sorts of involvement in bolstering Israel’s impunity in its neighborhood. Things at pivot points can get caught and mangled.
Dr. Michael A. Meyer wrote of American Jews: “For them the state is the flagship of the people to which they belong. Their Jewish identity is as much ethnic as religious, and their religious expression of that identity as much as affirmation of their peoplehood and the importance they attribute to preserving it…”
Polling shows this identification with Israel is less true than when written in 1994.
The American Council for Judaism, an anti-Zionist organization founded in 1943, is reviving the struggle within the Jewish community for Jewish life "free from the Zionist idea of Judaism as a nationality or the elevation of one nation above others…grounded in justice, solidarity, and humility."
We maybe are preserving ourselves without attention to what we become. An organized project to dispossess Arabs from their homes leaves us as what sort of people, declaring populations "human animals," and promising a “Nakba that will overshadow the Nakba of 48”?
Israel is now again attempting a land grab of south Lebanon, methodically blowing up evacuated villages so that Lebanese have no homes to return to.
Israel has no declared borders, only armistice lines after various wars since 1948. It has claimed and settled part of Syria, and in a de facto manner acquired all of mandate Palestine, settled it with Jews, but without recognizing citizenship of non-Jews living there. Gaza, populated in majority by refugees from the 1948 Nakba, it tried to settle, and strangled it at the best of times.
Israel has, since 1948, and especially since the 1967 occupation, arbitrarily detained 1 million Palestinians, and subjected them to routine beatings, humiliation, and abuse, reaching new depths since October 7, 2023.
This abuse is enabled by indifference to the humanity of a classification of people—in this case non-Jews.
Having known abuse from both pogromists and cruel soldiers, we—we?—unleash them on Arab civilians.
Israel is a significant producer in the international arms trade, especially in mechanisms of surveillance and control of civilian populations.
One thing is taboo: anything other than seeing innocence in the actions of Jews in the world.
Cruelty, persecution, crimes against humanity are in a blind spot when it's “our own people” as perpetrators. Exceptions to a virtuous rule.
There is anger at Israel's blockade, bombing, and occupation of Gaza, and West Bank state terrorism, and the reaction of Israel defenders is often that the charged offenses match historic antisemitic canards—thus are invalid.
The problem with enumerating the package of common antisemitic slurs is that they always seem to create a kind of immunity: If something has been falsely charged of Jews, one needn't avoid the crime charged?
Is it a matter of seeing ourselves as others see us? Is it a matter of the struggle for some objectivity? Is every ethnic or tribal identity a devaluing of those outside it?
For me to see the Jewish story with objectivity is as impractical as performing a non-trivial surgical operation on myself.
Do I touch on something unmentionable, “feed antisemitism,” by separating our human value from our outsize mythologizing?
I defend myself: It cannot be betrayal to think of Hillel's teaching, the universal "What is hateful to you, do not do to another," with an eye to truths we thought established in the Nuremberg trials, not to mention learned from the object lesson of the Nuremberg rallies.
Zionist Israel is Chelm. The legendary town of Chelm (not the real Polish city) in Yiddish stories is inhabited by remarkably foolish people who begin from foolish premises and build on them to ridiculous solutions.
The first stupid premise—that “Israel” can be taken from “Palestine”—is compounded by more and more technological excellence in killing and surveillance.
For believers that the Jewish story must include a modern nation-state in Palestine, it’s a certainty that I am “betraying my people” by writing out these thoughts. Or, naive to the innate antisemitism of the world.
In the Passover ritual meal, the “wicked son” asks, “What does this mean to you?” By not asking what the Exodus story means to “us,” he separates himself from The Jewish People, showing his wickedness.
I think the only irredeemable sin, among Jews, is faithlessness to “Our People”—aligning with gentiles. As a comment posted on a Zionist website stated, “True Jewish morality begins with loyalty to our own people.”
If all Jews compose a Jewish nation in a literal rather than spiritual, figurative sense, the weight of treason comes into play for faithlessness.
Danish expatriate Israeli Jonathan Ofir wrote in an online essay titled “I Am Freed from Zionism”:
It's hard to define the line where people sense you're not loyal. But it is a kind of social control with cult characteristics. It’s like people have the understanding that you’ve gone too far and now you’re not with "us" but against "us."
Ofir's provocative suggestion that Zionism is cultish makes me ask if there is some vulnerability that Zionism exploits in Jewish hyper-fixation on identity. Are we prone to the cultish division of the world into members and outsider "enemies" that installs an inner policeman to monitor for betrayal?
Certainly there is the cult characteristic of devaluing views from outside of the cult as worthless, ill-intentioned.
Intrinsic to Zionist belief is that Jews are historically vulnerable and non-Jews are unreliable, and that Israeli security is achieved by "realism”—relying on military superiority, "teaching" non-Jews lessons by massive retaliation and iron control.
Zionism began as a secular movement. The secular seamlessly slid to the sanctified, as the words of the Zionist anthem “Hatikvah,” with no mention of the deity, evoke the “Jewish soul,” necessarily implicating a God that made Jewish souls.
Considered with a step back, it has impressive gravity, being a selected people of God. Add the patina of antiquity and who can match the distinction?
The Zionist solution is to be strong and a majority—jettisoning the aspiration of making a better world where the weak and less numerous can be safe.
When arms and sovereignty are grafted to this identity, we have Jewish identity transmogrified to something new—Jewish religious-nationalist power.
With Jews’ role of noble victim is the gentiles’ role of ignoble victimizers. In practice, we may view non-Jews as defective, lacking, having morally-vacant animality.
There is a witticism of uncertain origin, “Jews are like everyone else, only moreso.” I’d leave off the last part, and just say we’re human, with all the human prides and failings.
We are people; people do evil.
Israeli-born genocide scholar Omer Bartov has concluded that Zionism “became the ideology of the state. And it became not only militaristic and expansionist but also racist, extremely violent, and ultimately an ideology that deeply harms both the individual and the collective.”
Bartov continues that in Israel there was “a radical transformation of Judaism itself into a political religion, intertwined with a certain translation of Zionism... In Israel the specific version has, in effect, produced divine or rabbinic legitimation for genocide.”
Zionism becomes revenge, for correction of every humbled moment of Jews in history, and glorification of the god that selected us—to wreak on Palestinians reversal of centuries of obstruction of God’s promise of Jews being mighty and numerous in our land.
Fatally, omitted in the fury is remembering the promise of the land is conditioned on faithful following of God's mitzvot.
The “eternal Jewish vulnerability” narrative is available in Jewish learning to be turned to Zionist purposes. In February, Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu laid out concisely the mental landscape of Zionism grafted to Judaism—eternal world antisemitism:
If you look at the course of Jewish history, then what you see is this was a fairly constant phenomenon:
I mean, once we lost our land, once we were scattered among the Nations, we were ready prey. We were ready prey. And eventually, when there was societal change the Jews always were blamed… And these attacks on the Jews were always preceded by vilification. Horrible vilifications that even so-called civilized and educated people adhered to: “The Jews poisoned the wells. The Jews spread vermin. The Jews slaughtered Christian children to use their blood for baking matzos.”
And this goes into modern times. The Nazis basically said the same thing. And all these vituperations, all these slanders were always accompanied, eventually, by exile or pogroms or mass murder.
That's what happened to the Jews one country after another into modern times.
PM Netanyahu then defines the rationale for whatever violence is necessary to preserve the Jewish state in Palestine:
The great change in Jewish history which [Theodor] Herzl saw very clearly is that when the Jews have their own independent state they will have the independent power to roll back the physical attacks against us.
Functionally, it is the strategy of a paranoid person holed up with weapons. As in any religion’s foundational literature, justifications can be found. In the Talmud is the imperative, “If someone comes to kill you, rise up and kill him first.”
In territories under Israeli control, it has fostered land stealing and ongoing terrorizing of Arab residents by Jewish “settlers” drunk on ethnic self-assertion, protected by the army of the Israeli state.
When we live among others, the paradox of this outlook on Jewish history, and its "solution" by territorial Zionism, is the abandonment of Jews' right to be French, American, Indian, Syrian, Irani. In harmony with the Nazi legislation that German Jews were not German.
Zionist founding father, secular Theodor Herzl, in Der Judenstaat, summarized the basis of Zionism—that Jews carry antisemitism with them. He said we go where there is no antisemitism and there generate antisemitism:
The Jewish question exists wherever Jews live in perceptible numbers. Where it does not exist, it is carried by Jews in the course of their migrations. We naturally move to those places where we are not persecuted, and there our presence produces persecution.
Herzl describes an irredeemable gentile world: “In the world as it now is and for an indefinite period will probably remain, might precedes right. It is useless, therefore, for us to be loyal patriots, as were the [French] Huguenots who were forced to emigrate. If we could only be left in peace... But I think we shall not be left in peace.”
Herzl's and Netanyahu's formulation is degrading of gentiles—that Jews cannot live among others. That there is something profoundly wrong with everyone but Jews.
This approach disregards the success story of a tribal cult from Judea maintaining and building culture over millennia, integrating converts wherever they’ve settled, up to our present.
Jewish pride can be consciousness of heritage, or be a sort of implicit contempt of gentiles.
The Zionist outlook, expressed by Maurice Samuel in 1924—talking of Jews' "wretched fate"—has Jews living in a trap which alienates us from humanity. One may be proud or lament the identity, but with no escaping it:
A century of partial tolerance gave us Jews access to your world. In that period the great attempt was made, by advance guards of reconciliation, to bring our two worlds together. It was a century of failure. Our Jewish radicals are beginning to understand it dimly...
The wretched fate which scattered us through your midst has thrust this unwelcome rôle upon us.
Do we demand safety, protection, because we share common humanity with rights to be respected, or because of our rare qualities—making us a special case?
Whether we think of ourselves as “ready prey” (Netanyahu) or precious unicorns of advanced civilization—or both—the point is we may think of ourselves as a different ilk than run-of-the-mill-humanity.
In America, the claim of being an extraordinary case makes a sisterly blend with Christians Zionist eschatology and “American exceptionalism” in Israel advocacy.
We are whatever we think we are. It isn’t a lament but a boast, that we are “a people that dwells apart.”
The Zionist solution is to be strong and a majority—jettisoning the aspiration of making a better world where the weak and less numerous can be safe.
In 1938, a Polish leader of the anti-Zionist socialist Bund forecast:
Zionism has always regarded the law of force, of nationalistic action, as the normal law of history and on this law has based its perspective on Jewish life…
If a Jewish state should arise in Palestine, its spiritual climate will be: eternal fear of the external enemy (Arabs); eternal struggle for every bit of ground with the internal enemy (Arabs)…
With Jewish identity focused on its ethnic nation-state rather than a worldwide people gifted Torah and obligations, its majoritarianism and contempt for others shows our vulnerability— as all other groups—to vice. Trauma has not ennobled us.
The whole of Torah revolves around the proposition of singular essential Jewish peoplehood.
Herzl’s proposition that we have “our right to exist as a separate people, according us our rightful place among the nations of the world” is built on it.
The inner policeman tries to stop critical examination of the identity—Disloyalty to faithful ancestors! Betrayal of my people!—to question Zionist corollaries of the statement, “I am a Jew.”
Weaponizing antisemitism on behalf of Israel does not protect Jewish people. It only makes them more vulnerable to future violence—for their sake, and the sake of Palestinians, Iranians and other victims of Israel’s violence, it must stop.
On March 17, Joe Kent, the director of the National Counterterrorism Center and pro-Trump ally, resigned from his position in protest of the war in Iran. In his resignation letter, he remarked, “Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation, and it is clear that we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby.”
Kent is not alone here. Secretary of State Marco Rubio told reporters, “We knew that there was going to be an Israeli action, we knew that that would precipitate an attack against American forces, and we knew that if we didn’t preemptively go after them before they launched those attacks, we would suffer higher casualties.” Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) remarked that ”[Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu just a few weeks ago said he’d been waiting 40 years for an American president to join him in attacking Iran. And in Donald Trump, he finally found somebody stupid enough and reckless enough to actually do it.”
Now, it is worth noting that this is one of several conflicting reasons that have been provided to justify this war. Yet, that is precisely why these allegations should be taken seriously and investigated. As it stands, the US and Israel have launched an illegal, unprovoked war that is indiscriminately killing civilians, including children, while wrecking the global economy. We must know why.
Despite this, these allegations against Israel have been criticized as antisemitic. Anti-Defamation League (ADL) CEO Jonathan Greenblatt condemned those who blamed “the Jews” for inciting this war. “It is a sad irony,” Greenblatt said, “that an operation against the world’s largest sponsor of antisemitism has prompted so much antisemitism.” Zack Beauchamp, writing for Vox, accused Kent of engaging in “antisemitic conspiracism.” He wrote, “Antiwar antisemitism is still antisemitism.”
Conflating criticism of Israel with genuine bigotry only makes it more difficult to assess and address this serious problem.
These responses represent a continuing and troubling trend of conflating criticisms of Israel (and the Israeli government more specifically) with antisemitism.
Let us be clear: Not all criticisms of Israel are rooted in antisemitism. Likewise, not all criticisms of Iran are Islamophobic. The same holds true for individuals: It is not inherently antisemitic to criticize Benjamin Netanyahu.
What matters is the underlying rationale. Are we judging the person or nation based on the actions they have taken, the thoughts they have expressed, or the policies they have implemented? Or are stereotypes, prejudices, and ignorance fueling those claims? Are the accusations of Israel provoking this war based on the best available evidence or antisemitic hallucinations of a “secret Jewish cabal” plotting world domination?
Parsing through these questions requires careful assessment. If the allegations against Israel are grounded in hatred, then we must hold the people spreading those lies accountable. Antisemitism can never be tolerated.
If, however, they are supported by hard evidence, then a commitment to justice, morality, and humanity requires we hold Israel accountable. The same standard applies to all nations and world leaders, regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, or any other characteristic. No one is beyond reproach.
Greenblatt argues that referring to Israel as an “apartheid state,” accusing it of committing a genocide, or starting the war with Iran contribute to the “most concentrated, most dangerous surge of antisemitism in living memory.” What Greenblatt fails to realize is the role of people like him in driving this surge. His rhetoric does not silence opposition. It does not contribute to productive dialogue and understanding. Rather, it creates the false perception that all of Israel’s actions reflect its Jewish identity; that Israel speaks for and represents all Jewish people. That only someone who hates “the Jew” would ever find fault in Israel’s actions. That antisemitism is the only reason why someone would support Palestinians and advocate for their sovereignty.
We must remember that antisemitism and racism, like all forms of prejudice, are acts of depersonalization and dehumanization. The antisemite treats all Jewish people as a homogenous group—they all share the same thoughts, have the same aspirations, engage in the same acts. Here, the diversity of thoughts and opinions is denied. For the bigot, everything the Jewish person does is not a reflection of them as a person, but rather of their “Jewishness.” This flawed logic paves the way for the antisemite to hold all Jewish people accountable for the words and deeds of a few. When people like Greenblatt indiscriminately label any criticism of Israel as antisemitic, he follows this same logic: He treats Israel not as a sovereign nation whose actions reflect its own internal decision-making but as “the Jewish state” whose actions are inseparable from its Jewish identity. It reduces all discussion of Israel to its ethnicity and religion—that is, itself, antisemitic.
Jewish people are neither collectively responsible for Israel’s actions nor do they universally support them. For instance, two prominent Israeli rights groups—B’Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights-Israel—have accused Israel of committing a genocide in Gaza. Jewish Voice for Peace, an anti-Zionist advocacy group, has protested against the US government’s unfettered support for Israel. According to a October 2025 Washington Post poll, 61% of American Jews say Israel has committed war crimes in Gaza, with 39% saying it is committing a genocide. None of this is antisemitism.
The reality is that according to both the Gaza Health Ministry and an Israeli security official over 70,000 Gazans have been killed in Israeli attacks since Oct 7, 2023. The reality is that Israeli officials have repeatedly implied or outright expressed genocidal intent. In 2024, Netanyahu said in a news conference, “In any future arrangement… Israel needs security control over all territory west of the Jordan.” In 2025, he said: "We are going to fulfil our promise that there will be no Palestinian state. This place belongs to us." More pointedly, Deputy Speaker of the Knesset Nissim Vaturi said, we must “wipe Gaza off the face of the Earth,” while adding “Gaza must be burned.” Those killings happened, those words were said—we must reckon with this reality, not cast it aside as an antisemitic conspiracy.
None of this is to deny that antisemitism is on the rise worldwide. However, conflating criticism of Israel with genuine bigotry only makes it more difficult to assess and address this serious problem. It dilutes the moral weight of accusations of antisemitism and distracts us from the harm suffered by its victims. Ultimately, we cannot seek justice for one group while denying it for another. We must stand with Palestinians who have been terrorized by Israel’s military assaults, as well as the victims of the Bondi Beach shooting, Temple Israel synagogue attack, and other acts of violence. A moral double standard cannot be tolerated.
And yes, it is the case that some anti-Israel critics, like Nick Fuentes, are antisemitic. Similarly, some disparagements of African, Asian, and Latin American countries are racist; and some attacks against Middle Eastern countries are Islamophobic. This possibility, however, does not mean we should treat every criticism as being singularly and inherently hateful. Rather, it must caution us to be more careful and critical with the words we use.
Weaponizing antisemitism on behalf of Israel does not protect Jewish people. It only makes them more vulnerable to future violence—for their sake, and for the sake of Palestinians, Iranians, and other victims of Israel’s violence, it must stop.
The oldest surviving Jewish newspaper seems dead set on using antisemitism not so much to fight racism, but to defend a racist regime and cover up horrific violations.
On Yom Kippur, two British Jews were killed at the Heaton Park Hebrew Congregation synagogue in Manchester, during a cruel, antisemitic act of violence. One of them was accidentally shot by police.
Later that week, while discussing antisemitism at the dinner table, my teenage son, who frequents a high school in Hackney, London, took out his phone and displayed scores of antisemitic Instagram reels.
Numerous AI-generated clips depicted Orthodox Jews in different settings, appearing to be obsessed with money, while other reels denied the Holocaust—questioning, for example, the possibility of preparing 6 million pizzas in 20 ovens. A few of his school friends liked the reels, thinking they were funny.
Antisemitism is alive and well in the UK and across Europe. This must be vigorously clamped down on. But, instead of focusing on this very real problem, major Jewish groups have instead followed the Israeli government by instrumentalizing antisemitism in an effort to criminalize and silence Palestinians and their supporters in the struggle for liberation and self-determination.
On the Chronicle’s pages, Corbyn appears to be much more threatening to Jews than Hitler.
The cruel irony is that, in effect, these organisations are dramatically weakening the real fight against antisemitism.
A case in point is the Jewish Chronicle, the world’s oldest Jewish newspaper. In December 2024, the Chronicle published an article by commentator Melanie Phillips, who wrote: “Deranged fear and hatred of Jews and the aim of exterminating them define the Palestinian cause… Left-wing governments that ideologically support the Palestinian cause and also kowtow to Muslim constituencies in which Jew-hatred is rife, shockingly recycle the lies about Israel.”
Claiming that the worst offenders have been “the governments in Britain, Australia and Canada,” Phillips concluded by casting all supporters of the Palestinian cause as “facilitating deranged and murderous Jew-hatred.”
Three weeks later, the Chronicle published an article entitled, “Did Elon Musk really perform a Nazi salute at Trump rally?” The subtitle assured readers that “Jewish charities deny it was a Nazi reference,” while the Anti-Defamation League was quoted as saying that Musk’s gesture was “awkward” but not a Nazi salute.
The juxtaposition of these articles—one conflating pro-Palestinian activism with murderous antisemitism, and the other downplaying the concrete dangers of antisemitism, as manifested in a nefarious salute by one of the world’s most powerful people—provides a gateway into the Chronicle’s universe, and its aggressive campaign against any demonstration of solidarity with Palestinians.
Antisemitism is often stripped of its original meaning—namely, discrimination against Jews as Jews—and used instead as an “iron dome” to defend Israel from its critics. Articles like these led me to look more closely at how the newspaper has historically understood and employed antisemitism on its own pages—a research project whose findings were recently published.
Examining the appearance of the term “antisemitism” over a period of 100 years—from 1925 to 2024—I assumed that its occurrence would be most pronounced during the Holocaust, when antisemitism led to the extermination of 6 million Jews.

The results, however, revealed that in 1938, at the height of the Nazi clampdown on Jews in Germany (which, unlike the “final solution,” was not shrouded in secrecy), antisemitism was mentioned in 352 articles. While this was substantially higher than its average appearance, it was substantially less than the term’s appearance during Jeremy Corbyn’s 2019 national election bid and Israel’s latest war on Gaza, where the number of articles invoking antisemitism was nearly double that.
Even though the term has become more common in recent decades, shockingly, in the Chronicle’s apparent view, the antisemitism threat is perceived as greater now than it was in the late 1930s and early 1940s.
Between January 2023 and June 2024—a period covering nine months before the 7 October attack and nine months after—the term antisemitism, almost always denoting anti-Zionism and criticism of Israel, appeared in roughly every fifth article. This suggests that the UK’s primary Jewish newspaper has been weaponizing a Zionist notion of antisemitism to produce moral panic among its readers.
The Jewish weekly, in other words, has played a role in whipping up fear and anxiety by falsely conflating antisemitism with anti-Zionism or criticism of Israel. This false and dangerous conflation explains the dramatic increase in the term’s frequency, and why on the Chronicle’s pages, Corbyn appears to be much more threatening to Jews than Hitler.
But for such spurious allegations to gain credibility, anti-Zionism and criticism of Israel must be constructed as posing an imminent threat to individual Jews around the world. This is accomplished, in part, by introducing another false conflation—this time between a person’s sense of “feeling uncomfortable” and “being unsafe.”
Given the fact that genuine antisemitism remains an all-too-present reality, the way the Chronicle has spouted the term risks displacing the threat of actual existing antisemitism.
Obviously, the claim that Israel is carrying out genocide, or that it constitutes a settler-colonial regime and an apartheid state, might make Jews who identify emotionally with Israel and Zionism “feel uncomfortable.”
But the Chronicle positions their discomfort as itself injurious, or as “being unsafe.” Ultimately, then, a fallacious notion of antisemitism is cast as a safety hazard to conjure up fears of Jewish annihilation—and this is then used as a counterinsurgency tool to silence Palestinian and pro-Palestinian activists who criticize Israel’s apartheid and, more recently, its genocidal war in Gaza.
Given the fact that genuine antisemitism remains an all-too-present reality, the way the Chronicle has spouted the term risks displacing the threat of actual existing antisemitism.
Indeed, the oldest surviving Jewish newspaper seems dead set on using antisemitism not so much to fight racism, but to defend a racist regime and cover up horrific violations. By abusing the term antisemitism, the newspaper is harming the very Jews it claims to represent—myself included.
With the ADL appealing to the NEA’s nine-member executive committee to reconsider the motion, union President Becky Pringle walks a tightrope as the committee studies whether to say yay or nay to the majority of delegates rejecting the ADL.
National Education Association teachers in support of Palestinian rights are celebrating their breakthrough success at the NEA’s Representative Assembly in Portland this summer. After years of organizing with both one-on-one conversations and state delegation talks, NEA delegates voted to pass a Drop the Anti-Defamation League motion that rejects the ADL as a curriculum and professional development partner.
“We are witnessing a sea change in people’s understanding of who the Palestinians are and what colonialism has done to them,“ said Merrie Najimy, former president of the Massachusetts Teachers Association (MTA) and Founder of MTA Rank and File for Palestine. “In the past, too many people didn’t see the humanity of Palestinians because Israeli propaganda erased and dehumanized them. We call that anti-Palestinian racism.”
While the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP), and CODEPINK applauded the motion, the Anti-Defamation League blamed a “pro-Hamas” cabal inside the NEA for rejecting an organization that smears peace activists and slams Muslims and anti-Zionist Jews.
The “pro-Hamas” accusation echoes the verbiage of Project Esther, the Heritage Foundation’s MAGA blueprint for crushing pro-Palestinian voices amid Israel’s genocide in Gaza. The product of Christian nationalists, Project Esther has earned the ire of the Academic Council of Jewish Voice for Peace for blasting anti-genocide protesters as members of a fictitious U.S. Hamas Support Network.
“Allowing the ADL to determine what constitutes antisemitism would be like allowing the fossil fuel industry to determine what constitutes climate change.”
In response to the motion’s passage at the NEA Representative Assembly (RA), an enraged ADL sent out a mass email urging its supporters to tell the NEA executive committee to reverse the NEA delegates’ recommendation that teachers not “use, endorse, or publicize” ADL materials, nor “participate in ADL programs or publicize ADL professional development offerings.”
A national Drop the ADL From Schools campaign has long criticized the ADL’s materials for whitewashing the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, where Zionist militias destroyed over 500 Palestinian villages in the Nakba (Arabic word for catastrophe) of 1947-48 when the State of Israel was declared.
The ADL’s mass email made no mention, however, of Palestine, focusing instead on the urgency of providing resources to fight antisemitism. “Don’t let the radical anti-Israel advocates within the NEA marginalize Jewish voices,” read the ADL email.
Whereas Merriam-Webster defines antisemitism as “hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group” and makes no distinction between the antisemitism that fueled the Holocaust and today’s white supremacist chants “Jews will not replace us,” the ADL’s Echoes and Reflections curriculum, co-developed with the Shoah Foundation and Yad Vashem, includes a unit that defines contemporary antisemitism as “anti-Zionism and opposition to the State of Israel.”
The unit introduces a pro-Israel vocabulary framework—delegitimization, demonization, and double-standards–a 3D test to evaluate whether an incident is antisemitic. Under this rubric, the campus slogan “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” is noted 600 times in the ADL’s 2024 audit of antisemitic incidents, according to the magazine Jewish Currents, which conducted a “line by line” examination of the audit. Even the ADL admits that 58% of the incidents cited in its 2024 audit were related to criticism of Israel.
Still, teachers and students who access ADL curriculum—No Place for Hate, Echoes and Reflections, A World of Difference—are encouraged, through links back to the ADL website, to complete a complaint form accusing others of involvement in what the ADL defines as antisemitic incidents.
On the floor of the Representative Assembly, delegate Stephen Siegel of Oregon reminded the delegates that Wikipedia editors determined the ADL is not a reliable source on antisemitism. “Allowing the ADL to determine what constitutes antisemitism would be like allowing the fossil fuel industry to determine what constitutes climate change,” said Siegel.
Backers of the NEA motion object to the ADL’s Zionist framing and stereotyping of all Jews as supporters of Israel.
“The ADL and other Zionist organizations continually try to equate criticism of Israel with antisemitism,” said Judy Greenspan, the Oakland Education Association NEA delegate who introduced the motion that emerged from the Educators for Palestine Caucus inside the 3-million-member union. “The NEA will no longer be bullied into supporting this genocidal war,” added Greenspan, a public school teacher and member of Jewish Voice for Peace who was among the 6,000 delegates at the NEA Representative Assembly.
In the days following the RA, photos of delegates who championed the motion were posted on social media, leading to “doxing, harassment, and hate emails,” according to Greenspan.
In contrast, Jason Goldfisher, an NEA Jewish Affairs Caucus delegate, complained on his Facebook page that his Jewish friends did not feel safe following the vote at the NEA convention. “There were tears. Panic attacks. Silent breakdowns,” wrote Goldfisher, who noted the presence of keffiyehs in the assembly room.
“Yes, many of us wore keffiyehs throughout the NEA Representative Assembly,” said Greenspan, “because we wanted to visibly show our support for the Palestinian people who are being brutally murdered by the U.S. and Israel in what can only be called a genocidal holocaust. One of the continuing mantras of the Zionists is that our anti-Zionist activism makes them feel ‘unsafe.’ It is such a false narrative because looking at what is happening in the world objectively, it is the Palestinians who are being brutally massacred by the Israeli government with U.S. bombs and military equipment.”
On the floor of the assembly, a delegate from the “great state of New Jersey” skipped over Israel’s concentration camp in Gaza to “rise in opposition” to the NEA motion. “The ADL defends members of the Jewish community against hate, discrimination, and antisemitism. That support extends to our students and fellow educators who use those resources regularly,” said the delegate whose name was “unclear” in a transcript of the debate.
The ADL, however, did not defend New England teachers who developed a counternarrative to the “land without a people for a people without a land" mythology. Former MTA President Najimy said the ADL launched a smear campaign against the MTA to accuse the union of antisemitism following the MTA’s development of resources on Palestinian history and indigeneity. “So why would we partner with an organization that is actively trying to discredit the teachers’ union?” said Najimy.
In 2024, when the federal census added a new category—Middle East-North Africa—the NEA bestowed formal recognition on a MENA Caucus, which Najimy said helped delegates understand that the union’s commitment to antiracism must include support for equal rights for Palestinians. Israel’s live-streamed genocide also brought new member delegates to the NEA RA, making passage of the motion possible due to widespread outrage, according to Najimy.
The NEA motion rejecting the ADL followed a similar motion passed overwhelmingly last spring by the governing body of United Teachers of Los Angeles (UTLA), which represents 35,000 educators in the country’s second-largest teachers union, right behind New York City. The UTLA motion asked Los Angeles Unified School Board members, administrators, and educators not to adopt or teach ADL curriculum or partner with the ADL for professional development because “the organization conflates anti-Zionism with antisemitism to suppress debate.”
In its rationale, the UTLA motion referenced the ADL’s history of surveilling activists (UAW, NAACP, ACLU), suing school districts, and sending a threatening letter to college presidents demanding investigations of the nonviolent Students for Justice in Palestine.
With the ADL appealing to the NEA’s nine-member executive committee to reconsider the motion, union President Becky Pringle walks a tightrope as the committee studies whether to say yay or nay to the majority of delegates rejecting the ADL.
Pringle assured the public that the NEA is committed to combating “all forms of hate and discrimination, including antisemitism and anti-Palestinian bigotry.” In a public statement on the actions taken at this summer’s NEA’s Representative Assembly, Pringle reminded critics that the NEA hosted a panel on antisemitism, honored a Holocaust survivor, and voted to honor Jewish American Heritage Month.
The NEA executive committee will forward its recommendation on the motion to the NEA board, which will then circle back with the Representative Assembly for a final vote, according to Najimy.
In solidarity with Educators for Palestine, CODEPINK urged its supporters to reach out to the NEA executive committee, and Jewish Voice for Peace asked its members to weigh in with a one-click tweet to NEA leadership:
Thank you @NEAToday for voting to cut ties with the ADL. The ADL pretends it’s a civil rights group, but really, it’s a pro-Israel lobbying group that smears Palestinian rights, and it should never be trusted as an educational resource. I urge all educators to #DropTheADL.
"I think it's despicable, cowardly, and highly hypocritical—after all the U.W. administration's efforts to supposedly address antisemitism on campus... just to tear down our sukkah?" said one student.
Some U.S. universities have torn down solidarity sukkahs that Jewish students opposed to Israel's war on Palestinians have built in recent days to honor the Sukkot holiday and to "protest as the Israeli military continues to invoke the Jewish tradition as fuel for the destruction of Gaza."
Sukkahs are temporary booths erected for the Jewish holiday of Sukkot, an eight-day celebration of the fall harvest and the ancient Israelites' escape from slavery in Egypt.
To honor the holiday, students from Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) and other Jewish-led organizations constructed Gaza solidarity sukkahs on campuses including Northwestern University; University of Chicago; Brown University; Columbia University; University of Washington; University of California, Berkeley; Stanford University; Yale University; University of North Carolina; University of California, Los Angeles; Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Rutgers University; University of California, San Diego; and other schools.
"For the past year, we have witnessed the Israeli government, the U.S. government, and even administrators at our university distort our thousands of years-old Jewish tradition to justify genocide," University of Washington student Talia Braester said in a statement.
"We will not allow our tradition to be exploited by those who seek death and destruction," Braester added. "Our ancestors, many of whom endured genocide and ethnic cleansing, taught us never to be bystanders in the face of injustice. We call for an arms embargo and divestment from the Israeli military out of a commitment to life itself."
According to JVP:
In alignment with Jewish tradition, Jewish students intended to spend eight days dwelling in the sukkah—a ritual in remembrance of Jewish ancestors forced to live in temporary structures in the desert while fleeing slavery. This year, students could not separate their observance from the fact that tens of thousands of Palestinians are forced to live in temporary shelters due to the Israeli military's mass destruction of homes in Gaza. And this week the world witnessed Israeli forces bomb Al-Aqsa Hospital, burning alive Palestinian patients, including 19-year-old Sha'ban al-Dalou, who was recovering from an operation in his tent with an IV still in his arm. Jewish students across the country are observing Sukkot and hung banners from their sukkahs saying, "Stop Arming Israel" as Israeli forces murder tens of thousands of innocent people in Gaza.
According to the Gaza Ministry of Health and United Nations agencies, Israel's 382-day assault and siege of the enclave has left more than 152,000 Palestinians dead, injured, or missing, and millions more forcibly displaced, starved, and sickened. Israel's conduct in the war is the subject of an International Court of Justice genocide case. Meanwhile, thousands more Palestinians have been killed or wounded in the illegally occupied West Bank. Thousands of Lebanese have been killed or maimed by the Israeli bombardment and invasion of Lebanon, according to officials there.
The U.S. supports Israel's war effort with tens of billions of dollars in
military aid and diplomatic backing including vetoes of multiple United Nations Security Council cease-fire resolutions.
On several of the campuses where sukkahs were built, university administrators destroyed the sacred structures—in some cases, throwing them in dumpsters. Some students said they now face disciplinary action, even though in years past they were allowed to sleep in their sukkahs.
"Many of the sukkahs were adorned with plants and gourds from local farms as a way to honor the harvest," said JVP. "In a callous display, the administrators discarded these as well."
"Many administrators cited draconian policies passed in the wake of the Gaza solidarity encampments that forbid students from camping overnight," the group noted, referring to protests during the last academic year. "The students explained that sleeping in sukkahs is an essential part of this holiday and part of their religious rights, but administrators choose to disregard the students' pleas."
Another University of Washington student, Roza Fernandez, said that "I think it's despicable, cowardly, and highly hypocritical—after all the U.W. administration's efforts to supposedly address antisemitism on campus... just to tear down our sukkah?"
"It shows the truth: Admin does not care about antisemitism and is not afraid to wield it to silence criticism of Zionism and their complicity in genocide," Fernandez added.
JVP media coordinator Liv Kunins-Berkowitz said that "these universities desecrate these students' Jewish practice because their faith is intertwined with their solidarity with the Palestinian people."
"A university has no right to dictate what types of Jewish practice are legitimate," Kunins-Berkowitz added. "Anti-Zionist Judaism is a long-standing and rapidly growing expression of being Jewish."
The U.S. students' campaign of solidarity sukkahs stood in stark contrast with the sukkahs erected by far-right Israeli settlers during this week's "Preparing to Settle Gaza" conference, which was backed by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin's ruling Likud party and featured speakers including Cabinet ministers and several members of the Knesset, Israel's parliament.
"Each of you will witness how Jews go to Gaza and Arabs will disappear from Gaza," one prominent settler and advocate for the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians told the audience at the event.
"What the administrators have clearly failed to grasp is that repression cannot kill the student movement," one coalition said, promising "new and more creative forms of resistance."
After cracking down on anti-genocide campus protests this spring, New York University is under fire this week for its new policy equating anti-Zionism with antisemitism as Israel continues its U.S.-backed assault on the Gaza Strip.
The Anti-Defamation League—which has also been criticized for conflating the two—defines Zionism as "the movement for the self-determination and statehood for the Jewish people in their ancestral homeland, the land of Israel."
NYU's Nondiscrimination and Anti-Harassment Policy and Procedures for Students (NDAH), updated last week, states in part that "using code words, like 'Zionist,' does not eliminate the possibility that your speech violates the NDAH Policy. For many Jewish people, Zionism is a part of their Jewish identity. Speech and conduct that would violate the NDAH if targeting Jewish or Israeli people can also violate the NDAH if directed toward Zionists."
"For example," the document details, "excluding Zionists from an open event, calling for the death of Zionists, applying a 'no Zionist' litmus test for participation in any NYU activity, using or disseminating tropes, stereotypes, and conspiracies about Zionists (e.g., 'Zionists control the media'), demanding a person who is or is perceived to be Jewish or Israeli to state a position on Israel or Zionism, minimizing or denying the Holocaust, or invoking Holocaust imagery or symbols to harass or discriminate."
The policy—seen as a potential model for other universities, as the next academic year begins—was blasted by critics of the Israeli slaughter of over 40,000 Palestinians, which is being investigated as genocide by the International Court of Justice, and the U.S. campus administrations that have invited violent law enforcement oppression of anti-war protests.
NYU Faculty and Staff for Justice in Palestine (FSJP) said Sunday that it was "alarmed" by the guidance, which "sets a dangerous precedent by extending Title VI protections to anyone who adheres to Zionism, a nationalist political ideology, and troublingly equates criticism of Zionism with discrimination against Jewish people. Furthermore, the new guidance implies that any nationalist political ideology (Hindu nationalism, Christian nationalism, etc.) that is integrated into some members of that group's understanding of their own racial or ethnic identity should be entitled to civil rights protections."
The "deeply disturbing" development "will legitimize far-right and ethnonationalist ideologies under the guise of protecting students from racial discrimination," the group continued. "This weaponization of the Title VI apparatus openly threatens the university's commitments to academic freedom and to nondiscrimination, and we insist that the administration reconsider these changes for the good of the university community."
The policy change "represents an intensification of NYU's yearlong effort to censor criticism and criminalize protest of Israel's ongoing genocide in Gaza," NYU FSJP added, noting that "equating criticism of Israel or Zionism with antisemitism has been roundly critiqued by scholars of antisemitism, by Israeli human rights groups, and by our own group."
In a joint Instagram post, NYU FSJP, the campus chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine, Writers Against the War on Gaza, the Palestinian Youth Movement, and PYM New York City declared that "NYU ADMINS CHOOSE GENOCIDE."
"Under the guise of 'campus safety' and 'community values,' they informed the student body that speech against Zionism may be deemed antisemitic and a violation of civil rights law," the groups said. "This conflationary logic is not simply an effort to chill pro-Palestine speech on campus, not merely revanchist pushback for the spate of encampments and other actions that NYU students organized last spring, but a deliberate attempt to dissolve student and faculty efforts to protest a genocide that is approaching the one-year mark, with a death toll rising into the six-digit range."
"What the administrators have clearly failed to grasp is that repression cannot kill the student movement," they added. "Every attempt to silence, to punish, to quell, will be met with new and more creative forms of resistance. The students have chosen to stand with Palestine and against the racist, colonial, and expansionist ideology of Zionism. Together we will struggle alongside them, until liberation."
Several organizations are planning a National March on New York City for Gaza, scheduled for noon on Labor Day, September 2.
Conflating free speech and hate crimes will not make Jewish students any safer on campus. This bill would stifle First Amendment rights to free speech and distract from the need to confront real antisemitism that exists.
Editor's Note: The following is a statement by the Congresswoman following her vote, alongside nearly 70 Democratic colleagues, against the Antisemitism Awareness Act on Wednesday, May 1, 2024.
As a Jewish woman, I’ve experienced antisemitism all my life. I’ve been called a kike while I was waiting for a drink at a bar when I was at college. I’ve heard too many ‘jokes’ to count about my frizzy hair and my big nose. I remember my classmates who thought it was funny to say people were ‘being Jewed’ when someone was being frugal.
Conflating free speech and hate crimes will not make Jewish students any safer.
I know the hatred and ignorance that lie behind all these comments, and how they can quickly escalate into violence—and I’m deeply concerned about the rise of antisemitism in San Diego and across the country.
But I do not believe that anti-Zionism is inherently antisemitism. I support Israel’s right to exist, but I also know many people who question whether Israel should exist as a Jewish state who are deeply connected to their Judaism.
Today, I voted against H.R. 6090, because it fails to effectively address the very real rise of antisemitism, all while defunding colleges and universities across the country and punishing many, if not all, of the non-violent protestors speaking out against the Israeli military’s conduct. Conflating free speech and hate crimes will not make Jewish students any safer. This bill would stifle First Amendment rights to free speech and free assembly. And it would distract from real antisemitism and our efforts to address it.
As they have so many times before, students have shown that they are our leaders in struggles for freedom, equality, and democracy.
Like the Black movement and the anti-Vietnam War movement, the movement for a free Palestine is global, not just a U.S. domestic movement. Central to the movement is opposition to the war on the civilian population of Gaza, rightly labeled genocidal. This combines with ongoing opposition to the slower-moving but still brutal Israeli offensive against Palestinians in the West Bank.
Yes, the destruction of Gaza was in reaction to the unprecedented and unjustifiable October 7, 2023 attack by Hamas (rightly labeled terrorist) on Israeli civilians. But there is no equivalence between these two criminal acts, at least not in quantitative terms. To equate them is to engage in ideological posturing, not credible political analysis. Indeed the parallel between the terms "genocide" and "terrorism" is a lot more intelligible.
I have been told by family members I have in Israel that "all Palestinians are terrorists" (full disclosure: I am Jewish and the child of survivors of the Shoah), but I don't think they really believe that; they are expressing their rage rather than thinking deeply. I'm sure some Palestinians would say that Zionism equals genocide, but I don't think they really believe that either. They are expressing their rage rather than thinking deeply.
Even though attacking universities is attacking their own children and destroying the futures of their own country, U.S. holders of wealth and power are willing to carry out those attacks, because they feel threatened by their own children's views of the world.
The student-led movement for a free Palestine is not antisemitic. Thousands of Jewish students have joined it. Hundreds of rabbis and cantors too, as well as leaders of Jewish organizations and prominent Jews across U.S. society and beyond. Despite fervent attempts to stigmatize anti-Zionism as anti-Jewish, despite strident efforts on Israel's part to merge its national identity with Judaism itself, or indeed with Jewish culture and ethnicity, despite the wildly inappropriate calls from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for the U.S. to crack down on student protest, Israel does not represent all Jewish people or types of Jewishness. So the movement for a free Palestine is not a movement to destroy Israel and expel Jews. Everybody knows that the Israeli Jewish population is not going anywhere, any more than the Palestinians are. The phrase "from the river to the sea" is frequently used both by both Palestinians and Israelis. The movement for a free Palestine and the Israeli peace movement (small but important) should demand that that language be rearticulated so that it applies to both peoples.
Efforts to repress the student movement for a free Palestine will never succeed. It is too big and too broad. It is part of a worldwide struggle for justice. It is a working-class and poor people's movement. It is an anti-racist movement and a feminist movement. It is an anti-colonialist movement, connected to the long struggle against European empires and the U.S. empire. It closely resembles the movements against South African apartheid and the Black Lives Matter movement, among many others.
It is not an accident that attacks on the movement have concentrated on repressing student voices. As they have so many times before, students have shown that they are our leaders in struggles for freedom, equality, and democracy. As has been true so many times before, opposition to the movement is concentrated among the wealthy and the right wing. It is wealthy donors who play the most significant role in opposing freedom for Palestinians, pressuring universities to prohibit pro-Palestinian speech and seeking to curtail nonviolent student protests. It is right-wing politicians who have become the new "snowflakes," madly canceling students and faculty for the "antisemitism" of criticizing Israel. Not just the students, but the university itself is their frequent target.
Notably, universities were already under sustained attack before October 7, indeed long before that awful day. Universities are one of the most central institutions in society. They have not yet effectively been brought under the control of the wealthy, of anti-democratic governments and political parties, of racist and sexist power structures, and of repressive religiously based groups. This is because universities are institutions where knowledge and culture are produced, where democratic debate happens, where the wisdom of the past is preserved and studied, and where youth are able to develop their ideas and skills. Even though attacking universities is attacking their own children and destroying the futures of their own country, U.S. holders of wealth and power are willing to carry out those attacks, because they feel threatened by their own children's views of the world. They fear the future they themselves are creating: one of permanent warfare, global heating and ecocide, and planetary apartheid. They hate being reminded, especially by their own kids, of their hypocrisy and violence.
The movement for freedom in Palestine shows us what a different future looks like. The movement demands university divestment from the Israeli warfare state and from Israeli apartheid. It calls out the oligarchs who threaten their own type of divestment, threatening to withdraw their funding from Penn, or Harvard, or the University of California, my own professional home. Let them go! Let them support Bob Jones University or Bari Weiss' ridiculous University of Austin. Let them subsidize notorious political hacks like Christopher Rufo and political poseurs like Rep. Elise Stefanik (D-N.Y.). By and large rich donors' funding is based on a hunger for prestige, not on any commitment to education. They seek tax write-offs. They subsidize their businesses through their donations. They hardly care about poor or working-class students, and even less about the humanities, arts, and social sciences, which are the fields where most undergraduate students major, and where the future of civilizational knowledge resides. Higher education is a public trust; it cannot be entrusted to the rich. As elsewhere in the world, it should be financed by the public, not greedy and blind billionaires.
The movement for the freedom of Palestine, led by students, has emerged at long last as the leading political current in the worldwide struggle for freedom in general.
The movement for freedom in Palestine is a new kind of movement, because it is not siloed. Students supporting freedom in Palestine have learned from Palestinians. Many have noted the connections between the Black Lives Matter movement and Palestinian freedom struggles. For example, in 2014 after the police killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, Palestinians who had long experience with the repressive police tactics of the Israelis taught Black protesters how to resist militarized police repression. (Meanwhile the Anti-Defamation League ferried U.S. cops to Israel to learn torture techniques practiced upon Palestinians.)
Movements resisting U.S. ecocide, like the Oceti Sakowin water protectors in the Standing Rock reservation, as well as anti-pipeline protesters and other climate justice activists, have learned from the Palestinians in the occupied West Bank defending their land against settlers who cut down their olive groves and destroy their water wells. U.S. feminists have learned from Palestinian women, like the then 17-year-old Ahed Tamimi, who in 2018 slapped an Israeli soldier as he tried to enter her family's house in the occupied West Bank town of Nabi Saleh. U.S. LGBTQ activists have repudiated Israeli "pinkwashing" to express their support for Palestinians. U.S. doctors and nurses are supporting their Palestinian counterparts, reacting in horror as Israel has destroyed every hospital and health facility in Gaza. U.S. educators are supporting Palestinian scholars and teachers as Israel has blown up every university in Gaza, and has razed schools in the West Bank. People in the U.S. who take their religion seriously, rather than using it to score political points, recognize that Israeli policies imposing mass starvation would make Jesus weep. And Rabbi Hillel, and the Prophet Mohammed, and Mohandas K. Gandhi too. What would Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. say about Israeli policy in Gaza?
The movement for the freedom of Palestine, led by students, has emerged at long last as the leading political current in the worldwide struggle for freedom in general. Just as the student-led Black freedom movement led the global freedom struggle in the years after World War II, joined by anti-colonial movements and the student-led anti-Vietnam War movement, the movement for the freedom of Palestine has taken its place in the struggle's leadership today. Or course the movement has its flaws: There are unsavory allies like Hamas and Iran whose politics hardly coincide with those of the student movement; Jewish students get harassed on campus just as Muslims do; not only Islamophobia but antisemitism lives on in the U.S., notably on the Christian right where the Quran is defiled and Rev. Hagee praises Hitler as an avatar of the Rapture.
But we have to look at the big picture: Anti-Zionism is not antisemitism. Israel/Palestine can become a safe home for both Jews and Arabs. The student movement for the freedom of Palestine teaches us that the people of the world demand social justice everywhere, including in the Middle East. Mass murder solves nothing.