By HFI staff

On October 7, 2023, we who live in Israel felt a growing sense of horror, devastation, shock, and grief. How could this have happened? It was the largest and most gruesome massacre since the founding of the State of Israel, and it happened within our own borders. More than 1,200 people were murdered and 251 were kidnapped. It seemed as though everyone knew someone who had been personally affected. And it happened in the southern Negev region, where idealistic founders of peace movements had built their lives.

We knew our army would respond. Surely, we must bring our hostages home. Women, men, children, the elderly, babies, and young people who had been dancing at a festival dedicated to peace. In those moments, many of us could only pray, "God help us."

For a brief moment, the world seemed to join in our grief. Then, to add to the shock and horror, protests erupted within days. Tents appeared on college campuses like mushrooms after the rain. Students and professors took to the streets in record numbers. One would think that in a normal world these protests would have been in support of a devastated people. Instead, the opposite was true.

We watched, shocked and sickened, as college professors praised the barbaric attack against innocent civilians. We watched in disbelief as people with whom we had worked for peace became cold and distant and eventually walked away altogether.

Almost on cue, blood libels and old anti-Semitic tropes resurfaced. In some elite circles, it became common to hear accusations that Israel was deliberately starving children or intentionally targeting civilians. Claims were repeated as facts with little concern for evidence or context.

This new and old anti-Semitism rose systematically, alarmingly, and inexorably. The genie had been released from the bottle. Ideas that had once been whispered on the fringes of society were now being repeated with academic authority in university classrooms and amplified across mainstream media platforms.

Then came a new twist. The self-proclaimed moral authorities insisted they were not anti-Semitic. They were not anti-Jewish, they claimed. They were merely anti-Israel. In other words, they did not object to Jewish people. They objected only to the existence of the one Jewish state and the right of the Jewish people to national self-determination.

Let us be very clear. Criticism of Israel's policies is not anti-Semitic. Israel is a democratic country made up of different ethnic groups, religions, and political ideologies. Israelis argue loudly, passionately, and constantly. Holding leaders accountable and striving for a more just society is both healthy and necessary.

Likewise, believing that Arab people living within Israel, Judea and Samaria, and neighboring territories deserve to live peacefully and with dignity is not anti-Semitic. Legitimate criticism of Israeli policies should be expected and welcomed because it can help a society improve.

This modern anti-Semitism, however, has a different character. It seeks not to improve Israel but to delegitimize it. It demonizes Israel unjustly, applies standards to Israel that are not applied to other nations, and distorts or reinvents reality.

One may criticize the policies of Israel's government just as one may criticize the policies of France, Canada, or the United States. Delegitimization goes further. It argues that Israel alone among the nations should not exist.

We agree that we must become better. There are policies in effect that many Israelis oppose. However, we do not agree that we should not exist at all or that the founding of the State of Israel was inherently unjust and unlawful.

Natan Sharansky, a former Soviet dissident, prisoner of conscience, human rights advocate, and later an Israeli government minister, proposed what became known as the "3D Test" to help distinguish legitimate criticism of Israel from anti-Semitism. According to Sharansky, criticism crosses the line into anti-Semitism when it involves:

Demonization

Double Standards

Delegitimization

We see all three operating at an alarming rate today and often being voiced as though they were unquestionable facts by people on the far right, the far left, in the arts, in academia, and throughout public discourse. In this Orwellian reality, historical facts are frequently ignored. To remain true to their self-appointed moral framework, many feel compelled to oppose the supposedly "oppressive" Israel while embracing the supposedly "oppressed" Palestinians, regardless of the complexities of the conflict.

In 1948, during the establishment of Israel and the war that followed, approximately 750,000 Arabs either fled, were displaced, or left their homes.

At the same time, approximately 850,000 Jews either fled or were expelled from Arab countries throughout the Middle East and North Africa.

Borders often change during times of war and conflict, and it is not within the scope of this article to fully address that complex subject. Let it suffice to say that repeated peace proposals have been rejected by Palestinian leadership, leaving the conflict unresolved despite multiple diplomatic efforts.

As I write, despite repeated calls for ceasefires, Israel remains engaged in conflict on multiple fronts. Hezbollah continues to threaten Israel from Lebanon, and Hamas continues to exercise significant control in Gaza.

Sources report a dramatic rise in anti-Semitic incidents worldwide since October 2023. Pictures of kidnapped Israelis were often torn down almost as quickly as they were posted. In many places, empathy for victims appeared remarkably short-lived.

To understand why many Jews and Israelis view anti-Zionism as a form of anti-Semitism, it is important to understand what Zionism means at its most basic level.

For many people, Zionism is not primarily a political party, a government policy, or a particular ideology. At its core, Zionism is the belief that the Jewish people, like every other people, have the right to self-determination in their historic homeland.

One does not have to agree with every action of the Israeli government to support that principle. In fact, many Zionists are among Israel's strongest critics. Zionism does not require agreement with every policy. It simply affirms that the Jewish people have the same right to national existence that is granted to other nations.

This is why many Jews become concerned when they hear calls for the elimination of Israel as a Jewish state. If French people are allowed to have France, Greeks are allowed to have Greece, and Italians are allowed to have Italy, many ask why the Jewish people alone should be denied that same right.

For this reason, many Jews and Israelis see anti-Zionism not merely as criticism of Israel, but as a rejection of the Jewish people's right to self-determination. While not every person who identifies as anti-Zionist is motivated by hostility toward Jews, anti-Zionism often seeks an outcome that would be considered unacceptable if applied to any other nation. This is why many view it as a modern expression of an ancient prejudice.

Let us be clear. Criticism of Israeli policies is not anti-Semitic. However, denying the Jewish people alone the right to self-determination among the nations is often a modern expression of anti-Semitism. After centuries of persecution, expulsions, pogroms, and ultimately the Holocaust, denying the Jewish people the right to a homeland while affirming that right for every other nation reflects a troubling double standard.

While not every critic of Israel is anti-Semitic, the delegitimization of Israel frequently becomes a vehicle through which ancient prejudices are expressed in modern language. History has taught us what happens when the Jewish people are denied both safety and sovereignty. We must recognize this modern form of an ancient hatred for what it is and confront it honestly.

To delegitimize Israel is ultimately to deny the Jewish people a right afforded to every other nation.

May it never be.