March 10 2026
This essay reflects my growing concern about antisemitism
and offers some thoughts about how we might move forward. I also lay out some additional ideas that I
will be writing about in the near future.
I have been revisiting an essay I wrote in
late 2024 urging Jews to not vote for Trump.
In that essay I described my concern with how antisemitism was amplifying
on both the right and the left, and my belief that the threat from the right is
ultimately more dangerous. At the center
of my thesis was the belief that because the threat from the right comes paired
with the power of nationalistic populist, authoritarian, and illiberal politics,
the risk is larger not just for Jews but for The United States and our
democracy. I continue to believe that is
true, and at the same time, I continue to believe that the rapid rise in
antisemitism on the left has a less threatening trajectory and can be countered.
However, first we need to understand the current dynamics, which increasingly
show a complementarity between these different types of antisemitism. We are
increasingly seeing what political theorists call the horseshoe effect, where
the left and right ends of the political continuum bend towards each
other. For example, right-wing
antisemitism traditionally portrays Jews as cosmopolitan global manipulators. Left-wing
antisemitism sometimes portrays Jews as colonial oppressors controlling Western
power. Different narratives, but the same underlying trope: Jewish power
manipulation.
On both the left and right, anti-Israel and anti-Zionist views
cross the line from a critique of Israeli government policies into historical patterns
of antisemitic rhetoric and behavior. A
good example is reaction to the war in Iran.
Opposition to the war runs across the political spectrum, which isn’t
surprising or concerning. However, the
notion that Israel is the driving force behind the US decision to attack Iran
is alarming and is coming from the progressive and mainstream Left as well as
the isolationist and antisemitic part of the Right. This is concerning because it feeds a
long-standing antisemitic trope that Jews are manipulating global politics
towards their own end. Moderate
Democratic Senator Jeanne Shaheen from my state of New Hampshire posed the
question, “…there’s real concern about who’s really controlling America’s
foreign policy. Is it President Trump or is it Prime Minister Netanyahu?” I
don’t think that view stands up to scrutiny. While Israel stands to benefit
from this military intervention, and PM Netanyahu will certainly pursue
outcomes favorable to Israel as any leader would, the United States has many
interests in the Middle East. Regardless of whether this war is wise, Iran has
long been a threat and we have kicked the can. “Death to America” has been a
stated goal for decades. Iran has attacked U.S. bases, killed Americans,
sponsored terrorism globally, and threatens our allies. It also has the
capacity to destabilize the global economy by targeting oil infrastructure and closing
the Strait of Hormuz, through which about 20% of the world’s oil supply passes.
Iran’s partnerships with Russia and China further complicate the picture. For
these reasons, the idea that the United States is simply acting at Israel’s
behest does not make sense, even if Netanyahu is a wily and determined
operator.
I don’t think the Senator’s comment itself was antisemitic. Opposition
to this war, and the roles of the U.S. and Israel are legitimate and
understandable. What I believe is she
evoked, unintentionally, is an antisemitic trope and image of Jews behind the
scene conniving and manipulating events. This antisemitic image is
endemic in Jewish history, and is often part of the dialogue when Jews are
perceived to be influencing US policy. All nations and groups attempt to
influence events towards their desired end, however, I don’t think any other
group gets near that kind of scrutiny as they attempt to lobby for their
interests. It appears increasingly
likely that many will “blame the Jews and the Zionists” for the war because
they won’t distinguish Israelis from US Jews, as they will include Jewish
lobbyists and Jewish Zionists (a majority of US Jews are Zionists). If the war doesn’t go well, which is a significant
possibility, Israel and Jews might be blamed.
This will increase antisemitic attacks beyond even the escalation we’ve
seen in last few years, which have caused extreme security precautions at most
if not all Jewish institutions and synagogues. In a very recent one week-period,
8 synagogues
in the US and Europe were attacked. To make it even worse, and this was the risk I
attempted to articulate in my 2024 essay, if Trump believes he is seen as
having failed in the war with Iran, he will need someone to blame and it will likely
be the Jews. When Trump thought he might
lose the 2024 election, he disparaged Jews who opposed him and said if he lost,
Jews would bear responsibility. This
will mean that the battle on the right between Israel supporters and antisemites
will be won by influential antisemitic voices on the populist Right. The risk
to Jews from the Right is greater than it has been since the 1930s, when Father
Coughlin, Charles Lindbergh, and Henry Ford were ranting against Jews and were
either openly supportive or at best neutral in their views of Hitler.
That doesn’t mean I am not very concerned and surprised at
the rapidity of the rise in left-wing antisemitism. However, I believe it is malleable because at
least some of that antisemitism is mitigated by ignorance and by the conflation
of several issues: Israeli government policy and conduct in Gaza, antisemitism
in general, and anti-Zionism. With time,
effort and dialogue these distinctions can be sorted out. With proper dialogue and understanding it is
very possible to simultaneously believe that Israel’s policies and conduct of
the war in Gaza are deeply wrong, but that Israel has the right to exist as a
Jewish nation state, and that antisemitism should be combatted. This view is consistent with basic liberal
values. This kind of dialogue though,
requires a strong democracy and laws.
The battle against antisemitism and social justice broadly, and the
battle for democracy are one and the same.
I have been thinking about what that dialogue looks like. I am engaged in a group dialogue with other
practitioners of Diversity & Inclusion and Organization Development who
share the goal of social justice. I am
writing an essay about building back the frayed connections between D&I and
progressive social justice work, and efforts to combat antisemitism. I will publish this on my blog soon.
The 2000+ year experience of Jews battling oppression,
repression, expulsion and slaughter is a signature experience of exclusion in
Western civilization. And, Jewish
history and ethical traditions have been deeply influential in the development
of Western ideas about justice and human rights. Correspondingly, Western history shows that when
antisemitism increases it isn’t only Jews who suffer. Thus, I don’t think it is possible to separate
combatting antisemitism from the pursuit of inclusion and justice.
Much of what drives the fraying relationship between work to
combat antisemitism and inclusion and social justice work in general, is about
mindset or how we think about difference.
In recent years some social justice frameworks have become increasingly
structured around moral binaries such as oppressor and oppressed or colonizer
and colonized. While these frameworks have helped illuminate real injustices,
they can also oversimplify complex identities and histories. Jewish identity
challenges these binaries. Jews have been both marginalized and successful,
vulnerable and influential, insiders and outsiders across different contexts.
This dynamic shows up in the exclusion from social justice
work, of Jews who are Zionists (a Zionist is someone who believes that the
Jewish people have a right to self-determination via the re-creation of a
homeland in their ancient land). In some
cases, even Jewish groups and individuals who are undeniably progressive are uninvited
to participate in progressive causes, or academic conferences if they don’t
denounce Israel or Zionism. This creates
a painful dilemma for many Jews.
Today’s inclusion and social justice models don’t handle
Jewish identity well. Jewish identity is
complicated by many factors: history, perceived racial category, “peoplehood”
vs. religion, relationship with the nation state of Israel, the astonishing
success of Jewish and Israeli creativity and striving despite historic,
long-standing oppression, and the juxtaposition of being simultaneously in
powerful and powerless status. This can
be confusing enough for Jews, not to mention non-Jews. Thus, the dialogue I
hope to encourage is badly needed and has the potential to rebuild bridges that
increase the safety and thriving of Jews, of all minorities, and of US
democracy.
I tend to look at socio-political/cultural situations from
the perspective of whether they seem sustainable. While right-wing antisemitism
has always been around and probably always will be in some form, I don’t think left-wing
antisemitism is sustainable. It creates too much dissonance from too many who
support core social justice values in a diverse, growing country that relies on
opportunity and innovation. It doesn’t
mean Americans will always support Israel the way we have (until very recently)
for several decades, but that is okay. We
can hold multiple realities. We can, and
should, be a society that continues to reject antisemitism and bias of all
kinds while also being opposed to repressive Israeli policies, but not
rejecting the existence of Israel. These ideas are not mutually exclusive and
they make sense.
More broadly, this is why I am optimistic in general about
the US; I don’t think right-wing populist nationalism is sustainable in a
country growing increasingly diverse, with progressive change and economic
dynamism at its core. We are in
challenging and disturbing times, but I think we will learn and re-learn some important
lessons and 10 years from now we will be better and stronger. I believe that once our polarized socio-cultural
dynamics ease (and they will), we on the left will be more willing and able to
step away from the moral binaries that interfere with real inclusion and
pluralism.
This is a bigger conversation that goes beyond
antisemitism. I have also started writing
about what I think diversity and inclusion, or DEI if you prefer, should look
like going forward. A key part of this
involves a shift from moral binaries and the judgmental virtue signaling that
has alienated so many. This more binary approach
to inclusion and justice, paired with a strong sense of righting wrongs, served
its purpose and drove positive change for decades. At this point though, we need to shift to a
more pluralistic model that combines a level of particularism when it comes to groups
(because identity is only becoming more complicated), with more universalistic
ideas of justice that can serve as a moral framework. The bottom line here is that the pursuit of
justice and fairness in our diverse, everchanging democracy has to be “owned”
by more of us and this will require embracing the hallmark of pluralism: unresolved
multiple realities will always be in conflict but the sort of pluralistic
conflict of ideas and culture that provides creative energy in a vibrant and
diverse society.
Thanks for reading, and if you are interested there will be
more essays coming soon.
