The Left Is Incapable of Condemning Antisemitism

C ondemning antisemitism without being antisemitic is a seemingly simple task. Yet for years now, American institutions have struggled with it. In 2019, a House resolution condemning antisemitism was amended to include anti-Muslim bias, and then white supremacy, and wound up mentioning “African-Americans, Native Americans, and other people of color, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, immigrants and others.” The resolution represented Congress’s failed attempt to quell a debate surrounding antisemitism on the left, which was prompted by Representative Ilhan Omar’s accusing pro-Israel activists of “allegiance to a foreign country” and saying that support for Israel is “all about the Benjamins, baby.”

In May 2021, the chancellor and the provost of Rutgers–New Brunswick publicly apologized for condemning rising antisemitic attacks in the U.S. because they had “failed to communicate support for our Palestinian community members.” The university president, Jonathan Holloway, then issued a condemnation of “all forms of racism.” In June of that year, the leaders of the Society of Children’s Book Writers and Illustrators did the same thing, apologizing to “everyone in the Palestinian community who felt unrepresented, silenced, or marginalized” by SCBWI’s statement that Jews “have the right to life, safety, and freedom from scapegoating and fear.” Also that year, San Diego State University responded to antisemitic incidents on campus, such as repeated acts of vandalism of a Chabad House, by creating a task force to address antisemitism . . . which was deemed inequitable by faculty members for its singular focus on Jews and its failure to consider Arab and Palestinian students.

Similarly “balanced” condemnations of antisemitism, combining it with other forms of bigotry, were issued in 2021 by Representatives Jamaal Bowman (D., N.Y.), Cori Bush (D., Mo.), and Ayanna Pressley (D., Mass.), and by Senator Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.). Their statements focused on “Islamophobia,” as did the so-called condemnations of antisemitism by Omar (D., Minn.) and Representative Rashida Tlaib (D., Mich.). As these condemnations were coming forth, Jews, 94 percent of whom were identifiably religious, were facing attacks in New York City. Because the attackers were 97 percent non-white, it was impossible to locate the hatred’s source in “white supremacy,” which the Left’s denunciations of bigotry often cite. Relatedly, Omar, Tlaib, and other members of Congress are unwilling to criticize Palestinian leaders for antisemitic rhetoric, despite repeated calls by Hamas and other groups for Israel’s destruction and violence against Jews.

At the height of the Black Lives Matter movement, its proponents objected when people countered that “all lives matter.” Curiously, though, the Left’s condemnations of antisemitism often have that all-bigotries-are-bad quality. Often out of concern that condemning antisemitism also condemns anti-Zionism, progressives qualify their condemnations by lumping in groups that they believe have a strong cause against Israel (such as Muslims). They also lump in groups with no relevant cause at all (such as blacks) to dilute the message.

This brings us to the Biden administration’s recent release of the “first-ever” U.S. National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism. A few weeks ago, the Biden administration struggled as progressive groups pressured it to reject the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism, which is the most widely accepted definition in the Jewish community and by Western democracies. IHRA includes various examples of when anti-Israel rhetoric becomes antisemitic.

Progressives instead recommended two new definitions of antisemitism, the Jerusalem Declaration, which was not included in the recently released strategy, and the Nexus Document, which was. The latter states that “paying disproportionate attention to Israel and treating Israel differently than other countries is not prima facie proof of antisemitism” because “some people care about Israel more” and “others pay more attention because Israel has a special relationship with the United States and receives $4 billion in American aid.” It ignores the fact that this “special relationship” exists because Israel is America’s main democratic ally in the Middle East, supporting American national security by fighting terror and extremism abroad, among other geopolitical benefits. The document also states that “opposition to Zionism” is not necessarily antisemitic, noting that “someone might oppose the principle of nationalism or ethnonationalist ideology.” The trouble is that those who think Israel has no right to exist as a nation rarely reject any other nation’s right to exist. The Nexus document in effect condones antisemitism in the form of applying double standards to Israel.

In the end, the Biden administration succumbed to progressive pressure, stating in the strategy that “the Administration welcomes and appreciates the Nexus Document and notes other such efforts” while acknowledging that the “United States has embraced” the IHRA definition. Note how the administration distances itself from the IHRA definition, instead nodding to its 2016 adoption. The strategy barely acknowledges the overlap of anti-Zionism and antisemitism, giving only a couple of finger-wags to those who single out Israel “because of anti-Jewish hatred” or who “delegitimize the State of Israel.” But the administration lets them off the hook.

For instance, the 60-page document includes over 100 mentions of “other forms of hate,” including Islamophobia, and condemns the 2017 march by neo-Nazis in Charlottesville, Va., while failing to acknowledge even once the growing BDS (boycott, divestment, sanctions) movement in the U.S. BDS meets the IHRA definition of antisemitism by denying Jews’ right to self-determination, applying double standards to Israel, and comparing Israel to the Nazi regime.

After endorsing Israel’s “right to exist, its legitimacy, and its security,” the strategy goes on to say that “American Jews and other Americans” have historical, religious, cultural, and other ties to Israel. While it is true that “other Americans” ­— some Christian, some Muslim — have ties to Israel, the Jews have a unique connection to Israel. It should not be controversial for the Biden administration to acknowledge this. Moreover, the strategy ignores the fact that violent attacks on Israel were followed by a near doubling of antisemitic incidents in the U.S. in May 2021, coinciding with an episode of rocket attacks from Gaza and the resultant military conflict between Israel and Hamas. Even the Anti-Defamation League, which, under its CEO Jonathan Greenblatt, is known for leaning left, has condemned antisemitic attacks by the anti-Israel Left. Greenblatt has identified anti-Zionism as a form of antisemitism.

On the subject of the anti-Israeli activism on college campuses, which in countless cases has shaded over into anti-Jewish animus, the strategy has very little to say. It mentions a single incident of an unnamed university teaching assistant celebrating the theft of a Jewish student’s Israeli flag and offers a general condemnation of Jews being targeted on college campuses for their views on Israel. The strategy places far more emphasis on white supremacy as a source of antisemitism. This conveniently casts the extremist far Right as the culprit while letting the Left off easy.

The strategy, predictably, peddles diversity, equity, and inclusion programming, calling on purveyors of DEI methods to include antisemitism in their curriculum. A coalition of over 2,000 Orthodox rabbis called on American universities to abandon DEI efforts in 2021, citing a report that DEI leaders often promote antisemitism. The victim–oppressor narrative of DEI, which places individuals in boxes, is fundamentally incompatible with supporting Jews, because they are dismissed as “white.” By the logic of DEI, given that Jews are “white,” Israel must be a white apartheid state oppressing brown Palestinians in a way that mirrors systemic racism in America. There seems to be no understanding that the majority of Israeli Jews are at least partly Mizrahi — or, in reductive DEI terms, brown. The DEI narrative is also fundamentally incompatible with Judaism itself, which espouses personal responsibility and an outlook of gratitude as opposed to a sense of perpetual victimhood. No matter which way you spin a DEI narrative, Jews will not fit into its framework.

You might have thought the bar was low for both defining and condemning antisemitism, but the Biden administration could not seem to reach it. The administration’s antisemitism strategy claims that it “will also help us counter Islamophobia,” even referring to both “Kosher and halal foods” in its discussion of religious dietary laws. It calls on employers to create workshops on the “intersection of antisemitism, racism, and xenophobia.” Evidently, one guiding principle of the National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism was to avoid offending other minority groups, who are perceived as too sensitive to bear stand-alone condemnations of antisemitism. And if among members of other minority groups there happen to be antisemitic actors, that’s a contradiction too uncomfortable to acknowledge.

The strategy document declares that “both antisemitism and Holocaust education specifically can also teach students about hate, bigotry, racism, and prejudice more broadly.” Not even Holocaust education is worthwhile on its own: Instead, it needs to provide us with a universal message. If you extend that universalism far enough, though, you end up — to use a word in favor on the left — erasing Jews.