"Anti-Zionism is Antisemitism," On Campus, Third Installment

Responding to counterarguments

[NOTE: Some fairly big news is coming next week some time. Stay tuned.]

The first installment of this piece is here. The second installment is here. To this point I have offered some ten reasons to consider that, despite the coarseness of the expression “Anti-Zionism is Antisemitism,” generally speaking anti-Zionism is antisemitism after all—and that the antisemitism is to be found in its typical foundation, motivations, methods, and consequences. Along the way I introduced the notion of “epistemic antisemitism” (the antisemitism that can permeate one’s belief-forming mechanisms like a cognitive bias of which one is unaware), and shown specifically how epistemic antisemitism is typically to be found throughout the foundational anti-Zionist narrative. In this installment I turn to some of the common counterarguments, as represented by (unfortunately) well-known “journalist” Mehdi Hasan.

6. Mehdi Hasan Arguments Against “Anti-Zionism is Antisemitism”

In June 2024, Munk Debates sponsored a debate on the resolution, “Anti-Zionism is Antisemitism,” featuring Douglas Murray and Natasha Hausdorff for and Gideon Levy and Mehdi Hasan against. In his opening statement Hasan offered three arguments against the motion.

The first is this:

Number one, if you vote for this motion tonight, you are throwing logic, history and the English language under the bus because anti-Semitism is hating Jews, the people, and Judaism the religion. Anti-Zionism is opposing Israel, the state and Zionism, the ethno-nationalist ideology that underpins that state. Zionism is not Judaism … Zionism is not Judaism, right? It's a very modern secular political ideology movement that was founded less than 150 years ago by an atheist named Theodore Herzl…

Hasan here attempts to assert the wedge between anti-Zionism and antisemitism: the latter is hating Jews, the former is hating the state and the ideology. Since Zionism is not identical to Judaism, the two anti-movements are not identical.

Second:

Number two, if you vote for this motion, you're throwing Palestinians as a people under the bus. You're telling an occupied people, a dispossessed people to accept their own occupation, their own dispossession, meekly in silence. Otherwise they're racists.

Identifying anti-Zionism with antisemitism condemns Palestinians, with their allegedly legitimate reasons for rejecting Zionism, as antisemitic bigots or racists.

Third:

And number three, last but not least, if you vote for this motion, you're throwing a lot of Jews under the bus as well. Not just Jews like Edwin Samuel Montague, but Jews today. If you vote for this motion tonight, you're saying my debate partner, Gideon Levy, whose grandparents were killed in the Holocaust who served for Shimon Peres, who's written for Haaretz for over 40 years, just won Israel's top journalism prize three years ago. He's an anti-Semite. You're saying the Satmar, the world's biggest Hasidic Jewish sect, which says it is fighting God's war against Zionism, is anti-Semitic. You're saying Jewish college students on campus, maybe some of them are your kids, members of If Not Now, and Jewish Voices of Peace, they're anti-Semites. You're saying some of the most respected Jewish voices in the world like Avraham Burg, the former speaker of the Parliament, Miriam Margolis, the actress from Harry Bloody Potter, they're all anti-Semites…

Identifying anti-Zionism with antisemitism throws a lot of Jews under the bus, as well.

7. Responses to Hasan’s Arguments

7a. Let’s begin with his first argument.

The most general response is to note that we conceded, at the top, that anti-Zionism is not “identical” to antisemitism. The question is whether the former is a species of the latter, and nothing Hasan says here suggests that it is not. The main reply is the positive argument sketched in section (2) above detailing exactly why anti-Zionism is a species of antisemitism, to which we add a bit more here.

(a) The reference to Herzl is entirely irrelevant. Whatever Zionism was at its founding as a modern political movement, and whoever founded it, and for whatever reasons, what matters is that anti-Zionism today is calling for the dismantling of a Jewish state built to protect Jews, so in principle and in practice it is antisemitic as we have argued above. That Herzl was allegedly an atheist seems to be Hasan’s way of distinguishing Zionism from Judaism, by suggesting that Herzl’s personal motives were not religious. But that is only relevant on the assumption that Jewish identity is only religious, as opposed to also ethnic or national, a point that Herzl—with his famous slogan, “we are one people”—openly rejected, as do many millions of Jews. Herzl’s precise relationship to the Jewish religion notwithstanding, he founded the modern political movement for and on behalf of the Jewish people, i.e. the Jews, making even his modern political Zionism very much a Jewish movement.

(b) More importantly, what Herzl started in 1896 was simply the continuation and modern codification of a movement that is at least 3000 years old, as old as the Jewish people and the Jewish religion themselves. That’s no coincidence, because the three are intertwined. “Zionism is not identical to Judaism”: true enough, technically, but that doesn’t mean that Judaism and Jewish identity are not, for the large majority of Jews, Zionist through and through.

What Hasan is doing here is actually quite offensive. He is trying to insert a wedge between Zionism and Jewish identity by denying that Zionism, in the words of some anti-Zionist faculty at Connecticut College recently trying to do the same thing, “is part of Jewish shared ancestry and religion.” While that phrase at least acknowledges that Jewishness is also an ethnicity in addition to a religion, it still amounts to an objectionable gaslighting revealing disturbing historical ignorance. Are they really presuming to tell people who are Zionists what the nature and source of their Zionism is? Would they do that to any other identity group, i.e. override their self-conception of the nature and source of their identity? Sure, there are Jews who are anti-Zionist, and these days anybody can pick and choose what they want from any religion, and anybody can form their personal identity any way they like. But while those Jews who decide to disaffiliate from the Zionism built into Judaism, built into ancient Judaism and medieval Judaism and 3000 years of Judaism to this very day, have every right to do so, they have no place dictating to the other Jews—still the significant majority—that their Zionism is not so rooted. And, frankly, non-Jews really ought to stay out of that conversation altogether.

It’s simple. Per the Krauthammer quote [in the previous installment] —“you dig the soil and you find pottery from Davidic times”—the Jewish people are indigenous to the Land of Israel. The Jewish people had sovereignty or autonomy there for some 1400 years, dating back nearly two millenia before the advent of Islam, and have maintained a continuous presence there for 3000 years. The Hebrew Bible, the Mishna, and one of the Talmuds were composed there. The Hebrew Bible drips with Zionism, and significant parts of the Talmud (and many of the laws constituting the religion) are devoted to Jewish obligations that hold only in the Land of Israel. Those in exile continuously prayed to return, and Jews have continuously returned, in small numbers and large, for the past 2000 years. They were already a majority in parts of the Land, including Jerusalem, from the early 19^th century, before modern political Zionism.

That is precisely “Jewish shared ancestry and religion,” and is the source for most Jewish Zionists’ Zionism. It isn’t merely incorrect but in fact offensive to suggest otherwise. As British Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis summarized it, explaining “Why the State of Israel is Central to Jewish Identity”:

I am a Zionist because I have inherited a language, culture and faith from the indigenous people of Judea. I am a Zionist because over thousands of years, my ancestors recommitted daily to holding Israel at the heart of their faith. I am a Zionist because I am a Jew.

Judaism is “more than” just Zionism so they are not identical, but Zionism is baked into three millenia of Judaism. To be anti-Zionist is therefore to be anti-Judaism and anti-Jew.

(c) We should also briefly note the double standard implied here: Hasan is clearly opposed to Jewish “ethno-nationalism,” but his advocacy is entirely to promote Palestinian “ethno-nationalism.” So he isn’t actually against “ethno-nationalism” itself, he is only against it when the Jews do it.[1]

7b. Let’s turn next to Hasan’s third argument, coming back to the second one after. Here Hasan argues that identifying anti-Zionism with antisemitism will (in his view, wrongly) entail that many Jews are antisemites.

(a) The reference to Montague is also irrelevant, as would be any reference to pre-state anti-Zionists. The difference between advocating against a Jewish state prior to 1948 and advocating against it today is roughly analogous to advocating against having a baby before conception and advocating against having the baby once the baby is already born: however good the reasons against may have been simply do not and cannot merit the murder of the baby once it has arrived. Maybe one believes the Jewish state was a bad idea, or could not have been implemented without bad consequences or serious injustices; but now, three-quarters of a century later, dismantling it itself could not happen without at least equal and likely far greater injustices than whatever was involved in 1948.[2] Many Jews had all sorts of reasons to be anti-Zionists when Herzl founded the modern movement, but it doesn’t matter: many even of those Jews had actually become Zionists by 1948, and most Jews in the world count as Zionists today. Perhaps it would not be appropriate to label Montague or most pre-state anti-Zionist Jews as antisemites, given the entirely different context—their resisting the founding of a Jewish state did not entail immediate injustices and harms to actual living Jews the way dismantling it today would—but that simply entails nothing about contemporary Jewish anti-Zionists.

(b) Hasan’s incredulousness apparently relies on the assumption that Jews cannot be or should never be considered antisemites. But that assumption is manifestly false. There have always been Jews who turn against their people, from ancient times through today, sometimes in order to be liked or not harmed by antisemites or sometimes because they become convinced by antisemitic ideology. In November 2024, a Hamas operative was arrested in Pittsburgh for vandalizing Jewish buildings including a synagogue; arrested with him was “his Jewish accomplice,” a woman who after attending an anti-Israel college came “to see Jews as my enemies,” then teamed up with that Hamas operative to vandalize synagogues. But that is merely a recent example of a very long tradition. Consider the famous speech by Nazi SS chief Heinrich Himmler to Nazi SS officers, complaining that their lethal efficiency was being compromised because every SS guy had his favorite “A-1 Jew”:

… the extermination of the Jewish race. It’s one of those things it is easy to talk about, “the Jewish race is being exterminated,” says one party member, “that’s quite clear, it’s in our program, elimination of the Jews, and we’re doing it, exterminating them.” And then they come, 80 million worthy Germans, and each one has his decent Jew. Of course the others are vermin, but this one is an A-1 Jew …[3]

Even the most dedicated antisemites, Nazi SS officers, can find A-1 Jews they like, the “good Jews.” If some Jews could appeal even to Nazis then all the more so today, when there is massive social pressure against the Jews, particularly in progressive campus environments, to get Jews to “turn” and become the “good Jew” for the Jew-hater. Favor Israel, on many campuses, and you are ostracized; hate Israel, and you’re the most popular Jewish kid around.

There was also the Association of German National Jews during the Weimar and early Nazi years. Fiercely anti-Zionist, its members wanted nothing more than to fully assimilate into German society, and remained in operation all the way until 1935—when the Nazis had enough and destroyed them. Though pre-Israel, these Jews were straightforwardly antisemitic: they wanted Jews to disappear in Germany, and were particularly racist against East European Jews for, reflecting the ideology of the era, lacking racial purity. They were, in short, the perfect “good” Jews for a while, until the Gestapo came knocking.

Nor were they apparently the only group of that sort. American Robert Gessner visited Germany in the mid-1930s and wrote a book about it, about which a Time Magazine reviewer said the following:

But after [Gessner] visited a famed rabbi in Munich, wandered through the ghetto in Berlin, talked with Zionists, Jewish workers, capitalists, he found himself appalled at the conduct of the Association of German National Jews. This organization supports Hitler, fights the Jewish boycott of German goods. Another group, the Nazi Jews, advocates complete loyalty to the Nazi program, and Gessner was told they leave their meetings giving the Nazi salute shouting, "Down With Us!"[4]

Indeed, there have always been Jews willing to salute, “Down With Us!” “Down with the Jews!” comes across as rather antisemitic, no matter who says it.

The existence of “A-1 Jews,” “good Jews,” or anti-Zionist Jews in no way undermines the possibility of the antisemitic label. The “Jew-washing” service these Jews allege to provide as cover for antisemitism is simply not successful. For these good, A-1, anti-Zionist Jews, the ones embraced by the anti-Zionist movement, are precisely the Jews who do not stand up for Jewish rights, Jewish freedoms, and Jewish security, who reject all those things. These Jews, in supporting movements such as the Nazis then or Islamist jihadis now, support movements working toward the mass murder of Jews. Whatever their intentions they are de facto working to disenfranchise the Jews, return them to powerlessness, return them to second-class status (or “dhimmitude”), and, ultimately, subject them to ethnic cleansing or even mass murder. That is at least effective antisemitism, their “Jewish” identity notwithstanding.

(c) The Satmar example fails quite spectacularly, in a different way.

One wonders, first, why Hasan did not invoke the anti-Zionist Neturei Karta sect instead, who though far smaller than the Satmars cooperate directly with anti-Zionists and appear regularly at anti-Israel events worldwide. Perhaps their fringe nature makes them too “tokenized” for Hasan, who presumably wants to invoke the specter of labeling a large group of clearly committed Jews as antisemites. But also, perhaps, that very point is telling, for though the Satmars are “anti-Zionist,” they are not known for actively participating in anti-Israel demonstrations. In fact they condemn Neturei Karta for so participating, with the current Satmar leader saying as recently as November 2023:

Unfortunately, we see how far they have strayed from the path. They are walking around the world together with the Arabs, with those who shout without any shame and support the [Hamas] murders, they walk with them in broad daylight with the Shtreimel and the gown and shout together with the haters of Israel and murderers of souls. This is a terrible desecration of the name of heaven, to strengthen murderers in the name of the Holy Torah and in the name of heaven.

So Hasan has chosen as his example a group that, despite its “anti-Zionism,” is actually opposed to the particular form of Hasan’s anti-Zionist movement!

We’ll return to that opposition in a moment. First we must acknowledge how ideal the Satmars and Neturei Karta should be for Jew-washing purposes, since, with their ultra-orthodox appearance, they are quite visibly Jews—and what could better exonerate an Israel-hater from charges of antisemitism than when such clear Jews are standing beside him screaming “Death to Israel”? And how could anti-Zionism be antisemitic when these groups derive their anti-Zionism directly from their Judaism? The Hebrew Bible, as they read it, teaches that Jews should re-form their political collective in the Land of Israel only by divine means, upon the coming of the Jewish Messiah. The contemporary State of Israel, then, is a religious abomination. That the state and its overall culture are largely secular—only worse. No wonder these Jews have extreme hatred toward Israel—hatred apparently indistinguishable from that of the other anti-Zionists.[5]

So why then are the Satmars, though sharing the anti-Zionism, opposed to Neturei Karta? Consider the following anecdote about the previous Satmar Rebbe. After meeting in 1968 with Presidential candidate Hubert Humphrey, the Rebbe’s aides told him they had warned Humphrey against raising the issue of Israel. The Rebbe laughed and said,

Had Humphrey spoken to me in support of the Zionist state, it wouldn't have bothered me in the least. We Jews have a Torah which forbids us to have a state during the exile, and therefore we may not ask the Americans to support the state. But a non-Jew has no Torah, and by supporting the state he feels he is helping Jews. So, on the contrary, if an American non-Jew is against the Zionist state, it shows he is an anti-Semite.

The earlier distinction between antisemitism “in intent” and “in effect” [in a previous installment] now illuminates the difference between the sects. Neither should count as “antisemitic in intent,” because they derive their anti-Zionism from their bona fide Jewish principles. But Neturei Karta’s actual behavior is effectively antisemitic, for it works to deny the Jewish people (pre-Messiah) the right to political self-determination in their ancestral homeland that presumably all other peoples enjoy in theirs, not to mention directly endangers the Jewish people with the threat of genocidal elimination. The Satmars object to the practice, refusing to participate in these effectively antisemitic behaviors.[6]

And more importantly, now, while the Satmars’ (and Neturei Karta’s) anti-Zionism can be exonerated from antisemitism, the same is simply not true for the non-Jewish anti-Zionists who Jew-wash with them (as the Rebbe points out). These activists pursue the effectively antisemitic behaviors (of dismantling the state, etc.) but do so while—in not being Jewish, in not deriving their activism from bona fide Jewish principles—not sharing precisely those intentions that would exonerate the antisemitism.

In a final small but important fail, Hasan overlooks an important fact. Though the Satmars are anti-Zionist in a particular Jewish sense, they do believe that ultimately the Jews should return to the Land of Israel which is their rightful home. If “anti-Zionism” is the denial of that idea, then, strictly speaking, the Satmars are not anti-Zionists after all. That makes them poorly suited as a counterexample to the proposition that anti-Zionism is antisemitism. They provide only an illusory cover for anti-Zionists’ antisemitism, but they do not remove it.

(d) But now: if the anti-Zionist Satmars are exempt from the antisemitism (in intent) label because their anti-Zionism is grounded in their Jewish beliefs, how does that apply to other groups on Hasan’s list, such as the members of Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP)—who make the same claim? In their case it takes some form similar to this: “Judaism teaches me tikkun olam, repairing the world, a call to social justice, which in turn requires Palestinian liberation …” But if Judaism teaches them to advocate for the Palestinians and against Israel, then how could they be “antisemitic” in intent?[7]

In fact there are many similar groups (including If Not Now which Hasan mentions, and British groups such as Independent Jewish Voices (IJV) and Jews for Justice for Palestinians (JFJFP)). It’s worth noting, that IJV was formed in 2007 by British Jewish anti-Zionist professors Brian Klug and Jacqueline Rose, among others; Klug has been described as having made it “his mission to immunize anti-Zionists from the charge of antisemitism,”[8] i.e. serve the needs of Jew-washers. Although any of them will do, we shall focus on JVP.

Describing itself as the “Jewish wing” of the Palestinian solidarity movement, JVP actively promotes boycotts against Israel, constantly condemns Israel in a manner indistinguishable from that of the most ardent non-Jewish anti-Zionists, was as supportive as those groups of the October 7 massacre and has been of the ongoing Islamist “resistance” during the Israel-Hamas-Hezbollah war in the year since, and counts among its major goals mitigating Islamophobia and supporting Muslim refugees. One might wonder why it does not just name itself “Jewish Voice for Palestine,” as that appears to be its primary mission.

Given the word “Jewish” in its name, the apparent Jewish ethnicity of many of its staff and members, and its appeal to at least some Jewish students across U.S. campuses, it is no wonder that JVP appeals to non-Jewish Israel-haters in need of Jew-washing services.[9] This is particularly true on campuses, where Neturei Kartei members to do the same work are generally not to be found.

Indeed, JVP goes to great lengths to stress its Jewishness. Its website states that its members “are inspired by Jewish tradition to work together for peace, social justice, equality, human rights, respect for international law, and a U.S. foreign policy based on these ideals.” It boasts of its “Rabbinical Council,” and it provides numerous resources for Jewish ritual and cultural life, including materials for Shabbat, Passover, Chanukah, the High Holidays, and Tisha B’av. In October 2024 their chapters built “liberation sukkahs” on many campuses, in support of Gaza and Lebanon.

So is JVP a successful Jew-washing resource?

To see why not, consider the famous Hillel quote that begins: “If I am not for myself, who will be for me?” (Pirkei Avot 1.14)

In my view, Hillel’s dictum provides a rough criterion for counting as speaking from the perspective of a certain group: one must be “for” that group and its interests at least to some minimal degree. Now while JVP may pay lip service to the needs and interests of (non-Israeli) Jews, its actual policies, resources, and behavior are overwhelmingly one-sided in support not merely of the “rights” of Palestinians but their entire narrative and tactical goals. It speaks so minimally “for the Jews,” and so maximally for the interests and rights of the enemies of the Jewish state—including those who aim to replace that state with an Arab Muslim state, and those who openly preach genocidal antisemitism[10]—that it is hard to treat it as a genuinely Jewish voice, consistent with Hillel’s dictum. Could one count as being “for the Jews” if most of what one does is empower the genocidal enemies of the Jews over the Jews themselves?[11]

This point is only amplified by closer examination of the “Jewish” resources JVP offers on its website. Its “Rosh Hashana” guide converts the traditional shehecheyanu blessing into one praising the successful Israel-boycott achievements of the preceding year. Its Chanukah guide praises not the Jewish recapture of sovereignty in their homeland but the sumoud (“steadfastness”) of Palestinians, interprets olive oil as a symbol of Palestinian sumoud, and asks, “This night of Chanukah, how will you honor the steadfastness of the Palestinian people?” Its Passover guide opens not with celebration of the Exodus from Egypt and the Jewish establishment of sovereignty in its God-promised homeland but with sentences about

arriving at the Passover table with the salty taste of authoritarian racism on our tongues … devastated, lead in our water or no access to water. Ferguson, Flint, Aida Refugee Camp in Bethlehem …scared, aware of the rise in Islamophobia and anti-immigrant discourse.

The “authoritarian racism” that JVP deplores is only that alleged of Israel, not that of the Palestinian Authority and Hamas; and while the group is concerned here about Islamophobia it offers not a word of concern about the ever-rising violence toward Jews around the world. The Passover message of liberation from slavery conveyed by this document is not that of Jews from Pharaoh, or of Jews from the slavery of their loss of sovereignty, but that of the Palestinians, from the Jews.[12] What does Tisha B’av become, for JVP? Not a day for remembering and mourning the destruction of the great Jewish Temples, the two great symbols of ancient Jewish sovereignty over the Land of Israel. Rather, JVP offers, “The Tisha B’av Gaza Mourning Ritual Guide.” And Sukkot? No longer building huts to commemorate the Israelites’ journey to the Land of Israel, but, again, to remember Gazans living in tents due to the war that Hamas started on October 7.

By converting Jewish religious symbols and ceremonies into those with a pro-Palestinian significance, JVP seriously calls the “Jewish” part of its name into question. To Jew-wash with JVP, then, is roughly akin to medieval Church officials denying their antisemitism by referring to their warmth for those Jewish converts to Christianity who reject Judaism.

Or worse—for JVP is doing something more sinister than converting out of Judaism in the way that individual medieval Jews did. It is converting Judaism itself, claiming that its new, pro-Palestinian religion simply is an authentic form of Judaism. In a perhaps analogous way, Christianity historically saw itself as the completion of Judaism, the true Judaism. To Jew-wash with JVP is then akin to the medieval Church rejecting traditional Judaism but denying it is antisemitic by pointing to itself as the true Judaism!

And of course JVP must convert Judaism itself, because, as noted above, truly authentic Judaism, traditional Judaism dating back 3000 years, is permeated with Zionism. Every one of the holidays and rituals JVP “converts” is one that expresses Zionism in one form or the other, and so must be expunged. JVP goes so far as to remind the reader, in its Passover Haggadah, that the word “Israel” there refers to Jacob, who “wrestled” with God, and perhaps thus symbolizes those who admirably struggle against authority. “Israel,” their text insists, does not refer to the modern state, Israel—lest someone read anything in the long-established history of the Jews as providing grounds for Jewish sovereignty in that land. JVP ignores the fact that the actual name of the modern state of Israel is the “State of Israel,” i.e. of the people of Israel, i.e. of the descendants of that very same Israel.

In that one move in its Haggadah JVP denies to Jews the very foundation for their rights in the Land of Israel—and it does so as a “Jewish” voice. Add to this the fact that most of its financing apparently comes from non-Jewish sources,[13] and it becomes hard not to see JVP as literally in the business of providing professional (if unsuccessful) Jew-washing services, its members’ protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.

One last point. For JVP, and their kindred “Social Justice” Jews, their claim to Jewish authenticity is primarily based on their understanding of “tikkun olam” as a call for social justice. But while that famous phrase may translate as “repair the world,” in the history of Judaism it simply does not have the “social justice” meaning they claim, as Jonathan Neumann has demonstrated conclusively. In fact they take a concept that affirms halachic Judaism, along with the Zionism that permeates it, and simply project their modern progressive conception of social justice onto it. That isn’t Judaism—it is their progressivism dressed up as Judaism. In a similar way they frequently quote Deuteronomy 16:20, “Justice, justice shall you pursue,” thus proclaiming that their conception of social justice is a Jewish concept. But they conveniently leave out the second half of that same sentence, which in its entirety reads, “Justice, justice shall you pursue, that you may thrive and occupy the land that your God is giving you” (emphasis added). In other words they convert one of innumerable Biblical verses expressing Zionism into something that cancels Zionism. Whatever that is, that is not the Judaism of the Bible. One imagines their Satmar “allies” would be very outraged at such desecration of the Holy Bible.

In today’s Western world anyone may believe anything they want. If Jewish people choose to form their “Jewish” identity by refashioning traditional Judaism into a pro-Palestinian religion, they are welcome to. But the fact that a small minority of Jews calls this religion “Judaism” does not outweigh the fact that the large majority of Jews—indeed the vast majority of Jews, if you include those in the millenia-long history of traditional Judaism—understand “Judaism” to refer to something quite different, that is, again, Zionist through and through. Members of JVP may sincerely feel that their anti-Zionism flows from their Judaism, as they understand “Judaism”—but the vast majority of Jews do, and would, disagree. Given their effectively antisemitic behavior, their intentions will only exonerate them from antisemitism in their own minds.

The response to Hasan’s third argument, then, is this: yes, even many Jews might count as antisemites. Exemption from antisemitic intent is possible where the anti-Zionism truly flows from legitimate Jewish principles, which is not the case for any non-Jewish anti-Zionists. As for JVP and similar groups, well they are free to call their anti-Zionist religion “Judaism,” but the vast majority of Jews, contemporary and historical, are equally free to disagree.

7c. We turn, finally, to Hasan’s second argument, that identifying anti-Zionism as antisemitism amounts to declaring that Palestinians are antisemitic unless they accept their own occupation and dispossession.

(a) This reply has emotional appeal, and Hasan frames it well: a Palestinian must accept Zionism or be considered a racist. Perhaps one should consider a “Palestine exception” here, i.e., grant Palestinians a much wider range of anti-Zionist and even anti-Jewish speech and behavior before being considered antisemitic. Both the Nexus and Jerusalem definitions seem to do that, and perhaps it is a decent thing to do: however we apportion justice and injustice throughout the IPJAMIC, it’s hard to deny that Palestinians have suffered extensively, including during the current Israel-Hamas war they call a “genocide.” One need not deny that suffering even if one denies it is a ”genocide”;[14] nor even as one emphasizes the suffering Jews too have experienced throughout. To empathize with that suffering may entail allowing their hostile feelings toward Israel and Jews without labeling them as bigots. None of this would excuse the antisemitism of non-Palestinian anti-Zionists, but precisely insofar as Palestinian anti-Zionism might be partly grounded in personal suffering through the encounter with Zionism, the “Palestine exception” might be considered here.

(b) Still, one cannot reject a definition of antisemitism just because of who receives the label from the definition. If you tailor the definition to protect your preferred people, that is obviously dishonest. If the shoe fits, alas, then wear it.

I’m reminded of this moment: In 2009, Hina Jilani, then the UN Rapporteur on Human Rights, stated with respect primarily to Palestinian allegations about Israeli misdeeds that “I think it’d be very cruel to not give credence to their voices.”[15] Of course her suggestion is absurd. It surely would be cruel not to listen to them, not to sincerely evaluate and investigate their claims, not to seek justice for them should the claims turn out to be true. But blanket credulity, particularly during a long, complicated conflict such as the Israeli-Palestinian-Jewish-Arab-Muslim-Conflict (IPJAMIC)? Even where we grant that, collectively and individually, there has been much suffering, it doesn’t follow that their overall narrative is the true or best one, or that they have had no agency or accountability in the affair either. In fact there may well be epistemic antisemitism implicitly built into Hasan’s point here, as it simply assumes that Israel and the Jews have perpetrated the dastardly deeds detractors regularly allege and that Israel/Jews are alone morally culpable for the suffering of Palestinians. With these assumptions Palestinian hostility to Israel/Jews would be justified, not bigotry; but if neither is true, there wouldn’t be grounds for exempting Palestinians from the antisemitism label.

Put differently: Even where we grant their suffering, it does not follow that they are immune to bigotry just because they have suffered. This is a difficult point to make in today’s progressive climate, where the allegedly oppressed are granted a nearly sacred status, seen as entirely innocent, and where the alleged oppressor is entirely guilty; and where these ideas generalize to the point where it seems that no single member of the oppressed class can ever be guilty and no single member of the oppressor class can ever be anything other than guilty.[16] To suggest that Palestinians may be guilty of antisemitism, in this worldview, amounts almost to a contradiction (an oppressed person or class being guilty of something), or at least to an unacceptable “punching down.”

To adopt that worldview, on the other hand, is to subject Palestinians to a condescending “humanitarian racism”: to treat them as children, having no agency whatever, never responsible for their decisions or actions, thus holding them to far lower moral standards than others, to the point, even, that when they torture, rape, and murder unarmed civilians and children (as on October 7) it’s somehow “okay.” It may sound odd, and it’s surely against the tenor of the times, but it’s actually more respectful toward them to subject their decisions and actions to universal moral critique than simply to give them a pass—not least because doing the latter amounts to finding excuses for mass murder.

(c) There are many Israeli Arabs, and Palestinians, including those who have “suffered,” who are “okay” with Israel. Some may even refer to themselves as “Zionists.” Many reasons make this possible, ranging from genuine support for the Zionist project to simply being fed up with a century of violence and wanting to move forward, to make accommodation with Jewish sovereignty in the region.[17] What matters here is just that this position is possible, and occupied by some Palestinians. That means that anti-Zionism is a choice one makes, among other possible choices. Hasan frames his argument in an artificially forced way: it would be unjust to label Palestinians as antisemites because (he assumes) there is no other legitimate position available to them given their experience but anti-Zionism. But that is not true. One way to avoid being an antisemite is to recognize that, despite your own suffering, the Jews, too, have suffered, and also have some rights, a recognition that could temper or remove one’s anti-Zionism. Once we grant Palestinian Arabs agency and moral accountability, we could even go back to the beginning of the modern IPJAMIC and recognize that some anti-Zionist choices they made “back then” were partly motivated by antisemitism—thus contributing to the suffering they suffered as a result of their encounter with Zionism.

(d) In fact the Palestinian Arabs have a long history of antisemitism.

First, one cannot ignore the long history of Islamic antisemitism, preceding the modern Zionist movement by a good twelve centuries. Not can one overestimate its general impact on the psyche of Muslim Arabs, including those in Palestine as the Zionist movement got underway. Thus mixed in with whatever legitimate concerns they may have had about Jewish immigration and potential Jewish sovereignty were xenophobic, racist sentiments against Jews, both as illegitimate outsiders and inferior “dhimmis” who should know their place. Today if someone were to proclaim (for example) that Mexicans should not be permitted to immigrate into the U.S., that land sales to Mexicans should be forbidden, perhaps call them “filthy” or “animals,” and were to undertake violence against them, we would instantly label that person a xenophobic racist. Those who today are opposed to Muslim immigration to the United States are widely considered xenophobic and racist. But the Palestinian leader, the Mufti Hajj Amin al-Husseini, originally resisted testifying before the 1937 Peel Commission because the British, he claimed, were “Judaizing” what properly was a “purely Arab country,” then relented and testified both that there was no room for a Jewish state among an “Arab ocean” and that Jews should be excluded from their holy places, such as the Western Wall, because that was a “purely Muslim place.”[18] To be fair, the concept of “racial purity” was common in that era; but, to be fairer, we also have no trouble today identifying such sentiments as racist.[19] Early-twentieth-century Arabs in Palestine had no problem with mass immigration from all over the Muslim and Arab worlds, of a diverse mix of ethnicities, cultures, and languages, but only had a problem with the immigration of Jews.[20] This opposition to the Jews can’t be blamed on the alleged dastardly deeds of the Jews because it preceded the immigration of many and the establishment of the state, the alleged ethnic cleansing, the alleged occupation, the alleged apartheid, etc.

Today we call such “problems with Jews” antisemitism.

And of course, the Mufti himself. Responsible for so much violence against Jews, utterly unwilling to recognize any Jewish rights or legitimacy in their ancestral homeland, thus utterly unwilling to compromise, the Mufti directly collaborated with Hitler and the Nazis’ Final Solution, created a Muslim army division for the Nazis, and spread propaganda throughout the Muslim world to activate the antisemitism always present there, hoping, ultimately, to bring Hitler’s Final Solution to the Middle East. If there were ever a moment when anti-Zionism is indistinguishable from antisemitism, it is the anti-Zionism that collaborates with and propagates the Nazis’ Final Solution.

There is then a straight line from the Mufti to today. The Mufti represented the Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine, the same Muslim Brotherhood whose branch is today known as the Islamic Resistance Movement, or Hamas, whose foundational charter both openly quotes the same antisemitic forgery admired by and motivating the Nazis (Protocols of the Elders of Zion) and quotes Islamic scripture endorsing the Islamic Final Solution, and who have spent decades directly attempting to perpetrate their genocide against the Jews, culminating in the barbaric atrocities against the Jews on October 7—widely celebrated among the entire Palestinian population.

That line also includes Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) leader Yasser Arafat, with important contributions from the virulent antisemitism of the Soviet Union. Ion Mihai Pacepa, the highest ranking Communist official to defect, explained how the PLO was “dreamed up” by the Soviet KGB. They hand-picked Arafat to lead the new narrative of the “indigenous Palestinians expelled by the imperialist Jews,” actively contributed to numerous PLO terrorist attacks on Jews and related targets, and worked to “instill a Nazi-style hatred for the Jews throughout the Islamic world.” In support of this the KGB “showered the Islamic world with an Arabic translation of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.” Subsequent PLO leader, current Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, after earning his degree in Moscow for a Holocaust-denying thesis, worked as a KGB spy promoting the same Soviet agenda. Soviet antisemitism, in short, built and guided the PLO and its propagation of the “Palestinian narrative.”

If nothing else convinces, then consider the following. Audio was released shortly after October 7 of one of the Hamas men calling his parents on October 7 itself, in the home of a Jewish family he had just murdered, using the phone of the Jewish woman he had just murdered, to brag about his achievements. Imagine, just for a moment, that his conversation had gone something like this: “Mom, it was painful and difficult, but we have taken the first steps toward the liberation of Palestine and for freedom and justice.” That would not change the evil status of what he, and they, had just accomplished, but it would at least allow one to pretend the movement was for something, for human rights, for freedom, for justice. Instead the conversation went like this:

TERRORIST: Hello dad. Open your WhatsApp right now, and see all the killed. Look at how many I killed with my own hands, your son killed Jews!

FATHER: Allahu Akhbar, Allahu Akhbar. May God protect you.

TERRORIST: I am talking to you from the phone of a Jew, I killed her and her husband, I killed ten with my own hands.

FATHER: Allahu Akhbar.

TERRORIST: I killed ten. Ten! Ten with my own bare hands. Their blood is on my hands! Let me talk to Mom.

MOTHER: Oh, my son, may God protect you.

TERRORIST: I killed ten all by myself, mother! Mother, your son is a hero. (Talking to terrorists on the scene: Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill them!)

This young man was so, so proud of himself, sought (and received!) his parents’ praise—for killing Jews, with his own hands, ten of them, look and see! That is what Hamas is about: the glory and glee in mass murdering Jews, all the more delicious when you can do it “with your own hands.” This is bloodlust, pure and simple, a thirst for the blood of Jews. Jew-hatred never ran so deep.

One doesn’t have to deny Palestinian suffering, one can acknowledge that that suffering has contributed significantly to the feelings, and still understand that this thirst for Jewish blood, exulting in the deaths of unarmed women, men, and children, is indistinguishable from the bloodlusty antisemitism of the Nazis’ Final Solution. It doesn’t matter what reasons or “justifications” you invoke. The lust for the blood of Jews, the ecstatic joy in the spilling of that blood, of children, the boasting of it: if that isn’t antisemitism then nothing is.[21]

(e) Again one doesn’t have to deny their suffering to attribute some portion of it to their own decisions and actions over the decades of the modern conflict. From the beginning, generally speaking, they denied Jews any rights or considerations in Palestine. The famous Khalidi letter mentioned above acknowledged that “historically it really is your country!” even as it urged the early Zionists to “leave Palestine alone”—because the local people would not accept the Jews. But that is just the point. It was the Jews’ country, but not only historically: Jews had maintained a continuous presence there, had always immigrated there in numbers small and large, already had a majority in some parts of the country. To deny them the ability to immigrate, particularly given the persecution and violence they were facing across Europe and the Islamic countries, is to deny them any rights or considerations.

The Palestinian Arabs made decisions, and could have made other decisions; there were possibilities of compromise available along the way, where they chose to fight instead. Perhaps those compromises felt unjust, but compromise is what follows once you recognize the legitimacy of competing claims. Zionists generally were willing to compromise, not least because they, generally, recognized that Palestinian Arabs had legitimate claims as well. The most important such moment, of course, was the 1947 United Nations partition proposal. Had the Arabs accepted, there could have been two states living side by side celebrating their 77^th birthdays this year. Perhaps partition felt unjust: they wanted the whole country and were losing something. But if you recognize the other side’s legitimacy, that the Jews too deserved some of the country, then you can compromise. The Jews also thought the partition was unjust to them, but they accepted it. The Arabs chose war.

That choice of war has and had consequences. As of the 1947 partition proposal there were zero Arab refugees. Repeat: zero Arab refugees. It was not Zionism, but the subsequent war the Arabs started, that produced the refugees. When you choose war you are gambling what you have in order to gain more. When you lose the war that you started you may lose what you originally had, per the nature of gambling. You don’t get to call “do over,” or “sorry, now give us back what we started with.” That is not how war works, nor does anyone ever suggest as much regarding the hundreds of other military conflicts in the twentieth century except, by double standards, for this one. The war was their “Nakba,” or catastrophe, both in its original sense (their failure to exterminate the Jews) and in the later sense (their defeat and “exile” into refugeehood). But those catastrophic consequences were the results of a choice they made, when they could have chosen otherwise—a choice made on the basis of denying Jews any legitimacy, rights, considerations.

Those who see the Palestinians never as agents responsible for their choices, never as aggressors but always victims, not only infantilize them but unfairly treat the Jews only as agents, only as aggressors. That is the antisemitism. To treat the Jews as ordinary human beings with the same needs and desires of most other human beings, but also with the same rights and considerations, is to appreciate the complexity of the IPJAMIC, to realize that Jewish actions were sometimes not aggressions but responses to Arab aggression, that Jews are not purely evil doers of dastardly deeds but simply trying to satisfy their own needs and interests as all parties do, and sometimes forced to defend themselves when attacked in what Arabs invariably promise will be “a war of extermination.” Winning a war of extermination directed against you is not evil. Nor is it an aggression, when the other side started it. It is a normal human response. Winning is sometimes what happens when one is forced to defend oneself. Nor does losing a war that you started mean that you are a victim.

Those who see the IPJAMIC as a long narrative in which the Jews are nothing but evil agents while the Palestinian Arabs are nothing but innocent victims are selling the Palestinians short and behaving antisemitically toward the Jews. That that description characterizes the narrative adopted by so many, including the Palestinians themselves, is evidence of the antisemitism throughout the anti-Zionist movement. None of this means the Jews are perfect angels, or that Zionism is not guilty of dastardly deeds along the way. But those incapable of apportioning any responsibility to the Palestinians and only responsibility to the Jews are, simply, antisemites—Palestinian or not.

(f) But even so, even despite points (b)-(e), suppose we grant the “Palestine exception”: we exempt their anti-Zionism from antisemitism insofar as they have directly suffered from Zionism. The key point now is that this will not do the work Hasan thinks it does in negating the proposition, “anti-Zionism is antisemitism”—for it will do nothing to exempt the anti-Zionism of the many non-Palestinians who support the cause, including the perhaps millions of Arabs, Muslims, and western progressives around the globe, including on so many campuses. They have not themselves suffered from Zionism, so the question is what motivates them to adopt the cause, to take the side of the Palestinians.

These numbers would also include the many classic right-wing antisemites who are also anti-Zionists, but for them the answer is clear, as noted above: they hate Israel because they hate Jews, simpliciter. They certainly don’t hate Israel because they are fond of the Palestinians, because, as right-wing perhaps white supremacists, they hate the Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims too.

But that extreme, and therefore clear, case does suggest similar motives among the other constituents of the anti-Zionist movement. One is reminded of the “horseshoe” idea, that the extreme left and the extreme right converge in their hatred of Israel and the Jews.[22] We’ll return specifically to the progressives in a moment.

But first, it may seem natural for other Arabs and Muslims to take the Palestinian side, via empathy or identification or even the “honor-shame” mentality some argue is dominant among that demographic.[23] Though this requires more detailed discussion, let me suggest here that that conclusion should be resisted. The Arab and Muslim worlds are not monoliths but deeply fractured, with many, often violent, conflicts within them, the Sunni-Shiite one the most well known and overall bloody (that may indeed be heating up again with recent events in Syria). There’s also an important division between Islamists and non-Islamists (though perhaps a matter of degree). Many Arab governments, for example, oppose the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, and Hezbollah, even banning them and repressing or persecuting their adherents. The Sunni states oppose the growing hegemony of Shiite Islamist Iran. Several Arab countries have peace or normalization treaties with Israel, including those in the Abraham Accords. Reports indicate that many Arab and Muslim countries are rather tired of the Palestinians and their century-long war against the Jews. It is more than conceivable that many Arabs and Muslims oppose the Hamas and Hezbollah war on Israel, either openly or behind the scenes, on the basis of their own national or political interests. It is more than conceivable—it is actual—that some Arabs and Muslims might not side with the Palestinians, on the basis of their own national or political interests or even their moral beliefs.[24] Again, anti-Zionism is not inevitable but a choice, where other choices are available. So when they do side with the Palestinians, either publicly (sincerely or in deference to honor-shame) or privately (in concrete financial or military support), one may ask why. Many Arab countries do not seem to really care about the Palestinians as a people, as evidenced by the universal refusal to accept any Palestinian refugees during the current war and the fact that many actively persecute the Palestinians in their own midst.[25] So might it be that they are motivated, after all, not by being “pro-Palestinian” but by being against the Jews, by their hatred of Jews—i.e. antisemitism?

That said, our focus will be on the progressive western campus communities, fervently anti-Zionist despite in no sense having directly “suffered” from Zionism. The first question (raised in section (5) above) is why, exactly, they take such disproportionate interest in this conflict at all, when the IPJAMIC is by all objective measures tinier and less violent than many other ongoing and recent conflicts (Sudan, Yemen, Syria, Nigeria)? Further, why do they favor that side, advocating for this people, while utterly ignoring the many other stateless, repressed, occupied peoples in the world: Kurds (bombed relentlessly and ethnically cleansed by the Turks, including during the past year, including through December 2024), Tibetans (occupied and persecuted for decades by China), Uighurs (China), Rohingya, Yazidis, Native Americans, etc.? Why not devote their energies, even some of their energies, to the Christians badly persecuted and regularly slaughtered throughout the Muslim world?[26] Or to the oppressed women of Afghanistan and Iran? Or why not even care when Palestinians face a real apartheid in Lebanon, and literally underwent ethnic cleansing and mass slaughter in Syria?

Those last two examples, along with numerous others, suggest that progressive anti-Zionists are not ultimately “pro-Palestinian” as they claim, as demonstrated primarily by what they do not say or do: they express minimal or no interest in Palestinian welfare except when doing so can harm Israel. They will sometimes offer unpersuasive defenses of their selective interest in the IPJAMIC. “The United States gives Israel money”: yes but the U.S. gives money to many entities and groups, including Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon whose human rights violations are extensive and serious, the Palestinian Authority (which oppresses its own people and funds “pay-to-slay” incentivizing the murder of Israelis), and UNRWA (infiltrated by and directly supporting Hamas), and sells weapons to Turkey who uses them to bomb the Kurds, yet these activists have not a word to say against those entities. Most progressives supported the “Iran deal” that flooded Iran with the cash that funded its “Ring of Fire” around Israel and directly led to the October 7 massacre—Iran, whose extensive serious human rights violations include killing women for not covering their hair and publicly hanging gays from cranes. Even worse, progressives ignore the fact that money “given” to Israel is actually an investment in an ally that directly pays American dividends, both in that most of it must be spent on U.S. companies (thus being an investment in America) and in the benefits of military and intelligence sharing, among others. To ask what concrete benefits America gets from pumping money into Egypt, Jordan, the P.A., UNRWA, Turkey, and Iran is to expose the hypocrisy of the progressive position here.

Most importantly, progressives claim they are motivated by human rights and social justice concerns, so shouldn’t they invest most of their time, energy, and resources in places where those are most badly threatened and violated—namely the long list of other conflicts and situations around the globe listed above, including the enemies of Israel, and more? Instead, what we get on campuses and elsewhere, on most other matters beside Israel: silence.

Needless to say, even if all of the allegations they levy against Israel were true (which they are not), the single-minded focus these groups direct to alleged Israeli misdeeds surely suggests something sinister. They only really care when Jews are the alleged perpetrators; as the title of Tuvia Tenenboim’s recent book put it, they thirst to “Catch the Jew!” Imagine a group of twenty-three men, one Black, the others all white. Then imagine a website called “Black Crimes,” obsessively documenting and disseminating bad deeds done by the Black man while not only ignoring his many good deeds but ignoring the far greater number of, and worse, bad deeds done by the twenty-two white men; and, to boot, imagine the website also advocated for isolating, harming, or even killing the Black man on the basis of those bad deeds, while ignoring or even advocating for the benefit of the white men. Even if all its information were true—the Black man did those bad deeds—the website’s racist motives would be clear to all, given what it does not say about the good deeds and all other offenses. Throw in that most or all of the allegations are in fact lies and misrepresentations, and the racist conclusion seems inescapable. Now substitute “Jew” or “Israel” for “Black” and “Arab” for “white” and it seems equally inescapable: these progressive parties are motivated by their antisemitism to focus on the Jewish state, i.e. the Jews.

This point is only reinforced by the otherwise inexplicable alliances these parties make with the Islamists.[27] Many of the continuous campus rallies after October 7 have displayed open support of Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis, waving their flags, celebrating their achievements, mourning their “martyrs,” calling on them to continue their “resistance,” holding signs saying “Long Live Al-Aqsa Flood,” and so on. Does one really need to point out that the progressive movement could not have less in common with the Islamists—who are homophobic, transphobic, misogynist, reject diversity, reject pluralism, reject tolerance, reject human rights, reject freedoms of speech, assembly, conscience etc. indeed, reject “progressivism” in every detail?[28] The only thing they share is “hatred of Israel,” but even that makes no sense for the progressives, since Israel is by far the party that better aligns with what progressives say they value. Anti-Zionists coined the phrase “Progressive Except for Palestine” to indicate their disappointment with the minority of progressives who support Israel, on the assumption that progressives should be anti-Zionist. But that is exactly backwards: that phrase should refer to the exceptions to their values that the majority of progressives make in support of Palestine. There is literally nothing progressive about “Palestine” or the Islamist groups leading the violence for “Palestine,” and there is much that is comparatively progressive about Israel—yet they work toward dismantling the Jewish state while establishing an anti-progressive Palestinian state.

It’s hard to imagine what could explain this other than a deep-seated hatred of the Jews that, while theoretically forbidden in their circles to express explicitly, can express itself as anti-Zionism. It’s not the “Jews” they hate but “Israel”—even though their hating Israel makes no sense, given their values, except insofar as it expresses a hatred for Jews.

Nor can you explain this by saying that progressive groups combat “Islamophobia,” and care about human rights for Muslims. As noted earlier, these Islamist groups don’t believe in “human rights” for anyone including Muslims, and have murdered far more Muslims in their quest for jihadi supremacy than have remotely been killed by Israel over the decades. And, again, there are many Muslims opposed to these Islamist groups. Progressives could—indeed should—side with those Muslims, rather than the Islamists.

The most they can say about their “progressive” support for anti-Zionism is something like this. (i) They are against white supremacy, (ii) They support the indigenous against settler-colonialists, and (iii) They support the oppressed against their oppressors. But their application of these positions to the IPJAMIC is truly ludicrous. Point (i) depends on complete ignorance of the “racial” reality, where both Israeli Jews and Palestinians span the spectrum of skin colors from light to dark; and anyway no group has been a larger victim of white supremacy than the Jews. Point (ii) depends on complete ignorance of the history of the region, in which Jews are indigenous to the Land and the establishment of Israel was a major decolonization process. Point (iii) depends on an absurdly narrow and historically ignorant framing of the IPJAMIC, where in fact the Jews were for a long time and still are the “oppressed” aggressively contested by most of the Arab and Muslim world (which outnumbers them in population and land mass by orders of magnitude), and are currently defending themselves in a seven-front existential war launched against them. And all of the above depends on (a) the humanitarian racism of completely denying Palestinians any agency (i.e. that they can be and have been aggressors), (b) the antisemitic denial that Israelis (i.e. Jews) are ever justified in defending themselves (in fact “resisting” Palestinian or Arab aggression), and (c) failure to appreciate that the IPJAMIC is a national and religious conflict (not “racial”), where one side is actually driven by Islamist jihadist genocidal aspirations entirely inconsistent with “progressivism.”

In light of all this, only one conclusion is possible: progressive anti-Zionism is driven primarily and deeply by antisemitism. In the best case this would be of the epistemic variety, the kind that isn’t particularly conscious; though one cannot but suspect, in light of the bloodthirsty enthusiasm so many displayed for the October 7 massacre, along with their open alliance with the Islamists waving the flags of the jihadist terror groups, that it is also of the more explicit variety.

The true “progressive,” in short, should be on the Zionist side of the conflict; the fact that so many aren’t can only be explained as the product of antisemitism. One might (though probably shouldn’t) give the Palestinians themselves a pass, but not anyone else—neither the right-wingers, nor the Arabs and Muslims collectively, nor the progressives, nor even the Jewish progressives who operate either by prioritizing their progressivism over the Judaism and/or contorting their Judaism into an expression of progressivism.

Mehdi’s arguments, then, fail, and fail thoroughly.

---

[1] Hasan is clearly anti-Zionist “in principle,” but even reframing his position here as being merely “in practice” won’t change the conclusion. Per the discussion of epistemic antisemitism, it appears to be only the Jewish state’s practice that invokes his ire, and the founding of the Jewish state is the only historical event he seems interested in undoing, all of which seems premised on the idea that Jews have no rights in this region whatsoever. And even if it were merely the way that Zionists behaved “in practice” that he objects to, note that he never raises any objections to how the Palestinians have behaved “in practice,” over the decades, including in perpetrating and widely supporting the October 7 massacre. In principle or in practice, Hasan’s anti-Zionism operates by means of antisemitic double standards.

[2] I defend this point in detail in “Even if (Most of) What Detractors Say About Israel Were True …”

[3] Trials of War Criminals Before the Nurenberg Military Tribunals: Washington, U.S Govt. Print. Off., 1949-1953, Vol. XIII, p. 323, and Himmler, Reichsfuehrer-SS – P. Padfield, Henry Holt and Co, NY, 1990, p. 469. Much of the material to follow I discuss in more detail in “The Indelible Stain of Antisemitism: The Failed Practice of Jew-Washing.”

[4] Review of Gessner’s Some of My Best Friends Are Jews (Farrar & Rinehart), in Time Magazine, December 21, 1936.

[5] In the early decades of the modern Zionist movement, from the 19^th century to the Holocaust, anti-Zionism was perhaps normative among the Orthodox for precisely the reasons mentioned. To be sure there were prominent rabbinic figures who strongly supported and promoted Jewish settlement in the Land of Israel—such as Yehudah ben Shlomo Alkalai (1798-1878), Zvi Hirsch Kalischer (1795-1874), Samuel Mohliver (1824-1891), Jacob Reines (1839-1915), and most importantly Rav Abraham Isaac Kook (1865-1935)—but despite some of them enjoying great influence, by and large they faced stiff resistance from the religious community. Today, after the Holocaust and nearly 80 years after the founding of the State of Israel, Orthodox anti-Zionism is a minority opinion.

[6] In fact the Satmars ended up endorsing Trump in the 2024 election because they feared the impact of a Harris presidency on Israel and the Jewish people. They also provided support for IDF soldiers defending the country during the wars with Hamas and Hezbollah.

[7] Elsewhere I treat the closely related category of “Social Justice Jews.”

[8] The occasion for the remark was the protest over Klug’s invitation to be a keynote speaker at an international conference on antisemitism sponsored by the Berlin Jewish Museum in November, 2013. A twenty-five page dossier of statements by prominent thinkers criticizing this invitation was produced. The remark in question is from Ben Cohen’s statement in the dossier. In the same dossier, Sam Weston notes that Klug argued during a 2006 debate that “subverting Zionism” is the “Jewish thing” to do.

[9] Interestingly JVP does not require a Jewish identity to be a member, and various staff and members are known not to be Jewish, but we’ll overlook that fact. JVP’s response to the charge that they provide services to Jew-washers may be found in “We’re Nobody’s Jew-Washing Pawns.”

[10] For a summary of JVP’s embrace of the Palestinian narrative and alliances with extreme anti-Israel groups, including those that call for Israel’s destruction, see here. For examples of JVP’s support for Hamas prior to October 7, see here. As for the activism after October 7, suffice to say that they have been full participants in all the anti-Israel, pro-Hamas activities since then.

[11] JVP doesn’t even really try here. If they at least advertised themselves as advocating for “what’s best for the Jews” then that perhaps would exempt them from intentional antisemitism, even if there is serious disagreement over just what is “best for the Jews” (advocating for Palestinian rights, etc.). But while they claim to ground their advocacy on Jewish principles (such as “tikkun olam” (as they understand it), etc.), they openly advocate not for the Jews but for the Palestinians.

[12] Miriam Elman dissects JVP’s manipulation of Passover in “Anti-Israel Activists Hijack Passover, Turn it into Palestinian Liberation Event.”

[13] In fact JVP is secretive about its financing. But according to an investigation by NGO Monitor, JVP receives “funding from a broad range of foundations and charitable trusts, many of which, unsurprisingly, also contribute to other anti-Israel organizations.” According to that same investigation, very few (if any) of the organizations funding JVP are Jewish in nature or focus. See also “BDS Money Trail Suggests Opaque Funding Network.”

[14] See my “Setting the Record Straight.”

[15] This quote is discussed in Richard Landes, “Can the Whole World be Wrong?” Lethal Journalism, Antisemitism, and Global Jihad (Academic Studies Press, 2022), p. 300.

[16] One is reminded of Bertrand Russell’s essay, “The Superior Virtue of the Oppressed,” in Unpopular Essays (1950).

[17] I explore this point in more detail in “Even if (Most of) What Detractors Say About Israel Were True…” That doesn’t mean one has to like the past, but it does encourage one to adapt and look forward.

[18] Either he, or someone else, also testified explicitly that Jews should be excluded from Palestine because of the “Arab purity” of the entire Middle East, but I’m unable to locate the specific reference.

[19] Just insert “white” for Arab and Muslim and “Black” for Jew and see how it reads.

[20] An interesting thought experiment would be to imagine what would have happened if, say, Egyptians or Jordanians had immigrated in large numbers and established Egyptian or Jordanian sovereignty. Actually that’s not a thought experiment, given that Egypt and Jordan invaded in 1948 and conquered Gaza and Judea-Samaria, in the latter case officially annexing it. What happened? No opposition at all from the Palestinian Arabs; indeed when the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) was established in 1964 its charter stated that it made no claims on those regions. Apparently it was only Jewish immigration and potential sovereignty that was a problem. Another word for that discriminatory response is antisemitism.

[21] In “The One Simple Question That Determines Everything” I argue that literally nothing Israel allegedly does or has done, none of the alleged grievances, come close to justifying the massacre of October 7.

[22] A particularly poignant illustration of this occurred in 2021, when a San Antonio JVP group found themselves protesting a Zionist church alongside a neo-Nazi group. According to the report: “I’m horrified,” said Judith Norman, a member of the Jewish Voice For Peace San Antonio chapter. “This is a time that is really fertile for a lot of far right extremist hate organizations. And it's appalling to see them in the open.” Somehow the irony that they were protesting right alongside JVP was lost on her. Since then, the emboldened white supremacists have often showed up at the same anti-Israel demonstrations as the leftist progressives.

[23] See in particular Richard Landes, “Can the Whole World Be Wrong?”: Lethal Journalism, Antisemitism, and Global Jihad (Academic Studies Press, 2022).

[24] There are numerous individuals fitting this description active on social media. And for an example, think about Yemen, a poverty-stricken war-torn country where millions have died or become refugees, dedicating its limited resources to attack Israel. Mightn’t some there object to that self-harming decision?

[25] Iran has provided copious funding for Hamas, for example, without providing any funds for schools or hospitals in the Gaza strip. That suggests their concern is not for the welfare of Palestinians so much as for the destruction of Israel.

[26] Over 50,000 in the past 14 years in Nigeria, for example, or over 60,000 in the last 24 years! Prior to the Israel-Hamas war triggered by October 7, these numbers dwarf the casualties in the same period in the IPJAMIC.

[27] We first broached this topic in section (2), point (9) above.

[28] Abe Greenwald puts the point sharply: “Gaza is precisely what the Western left says it hates: a racist, sexist, homophobic, militaristic, anti-Democratic, kleptocratic, dogmatically religious police state of science fictional inequity and oppression. And they love it more than anything in the world.”