Boundaries and Balance: How Israel׳s Critics Can Avoid Jew-Hatred, How Israel׳s Supporters Can Avoid Confusing Critics with Bigots

When anti-Zionists oversimplify, libeling Israel as an outlaw state, an oppressive, illegitimate, settler-colonialist racist enterprise, they conflate the two hatreds. If they׳re not bigots, it׳s their responsibility to distance themselves from those who demonize Israel and Jews, Zionism and Judaism altogether.

Anti-Israel hysteria is trending. Critics blame Israel for whatever evils they see in Western civilization, be it imperialism, racism, apartheid, ethnic-cleansing, settler-colonialism, supremacy, and now, genocide. Simone Rodan-Benzaquen of the American Jewish Committee notes that for the far right, Ukraine became ״what Israel is to the far left – … a proxy in a larger struggle״ disconnected from either country׳s reality: Ukraine became ״a globalist scheme״ and Israel, ״a colonial enterprise.״ Imagining some international conspiracy, anti-Ukraine White nationalists degenerated into Jew-hatred, as the far left did with Israel. Far-right influencer Candace Owens called the Ukraine war which Russia started ״just another way for globalists like [the Jewish Hungarian-American George] Soros to control us.״ White supremacists like Sean Sweat charged the ״Jewish elite״ with starting the war, to profiteer while watching White men kill each other.

The onslaught against Israel and the Jews, makes many Jews defensive. Democracies need robust debates to grow, develop, and self-correct. Of course, there is no moral equivalence between the two reactions. Treating critiques as betrayal is not as bad as escalating every critique into demonization and delegitimization.

Jews do not cause Jew-hatred, Jew-haters do. Jews do not have to ask: What can we do differently so people don׳t hate us? Jew-hatred is the antisemitic non-Jews׳ failing. That׳s why non-Jews should lead the fight against Jew-hatred, not Jews. Over the millennia, outbreaks of antisemitism reflected social dysfunction and moral degeneration.

Tone counts. Just like it׳s hard to describe ״love״ or ״sadness,״ it׳s hard to pinpoint when arguments become bigoted. Still, poisonous conversations about Israel reflect malice, while discouraging healthy debate. Israel׳s supporters could benefit from tough, constructive conversations about Zionism, Israeli history, and Israel׳s current dilemmas. Thoughtful, critical, responsible, patriotic Zionists, left and right, have to proceed with caution: they have to give Israel׳s government the robust critique it often needs, well-aware that many are waiting to attack Israel in ways it doesn׳t deserve.

Haters turn question marks into exclamation points. By turning accusatory, they weaponize valid questions and complex dilemmas.

History is messy. No country is perfect, certainly not one defending itself against Iran, the Houthis, Hamas, Hezbollah, and Palestinian terrorists. These adversaries are perfectly awful – while Israel has the best governing mechanism invented for dealing with an imperfect world… democracy.

״Why is Zionism a legitimate nationalist movement, isn׳t Judaism a religion?״ versus ״Zionism is a racist, settler-colonialist enterprise!״

Many find even the milder framing offensive, because no other nationalist movement is questioned so relentlessly – what other nation is constantly asked to justify its existence? Nevertheless, some Jews consider Judaism only a religion. The West׳s ״Judeo-Christian״ embrace treats Judaism, like Christianity, as a matter of faith. But, as Chapter 1 demonstrates, Judaism fuses religious identity with Jews׳ national, cultural, ethnic consciousness as a people, rooted in their homeland. Exploiting this honest confusion, bigots go further. They commit ״historicide״ – denying a people׳s history – negating Jews׳ national consciousness, Jews׳ historical ties to the land, and the anti-colonial sensibility wired into Zionism׳s DNA: Zionists fought for independence against the Ottoman Empire, then the British Empire.

״What right did Jews have to establish a state on Palestinian land?״ versus ״Established by the West out of Holocaust guilt, Israel is an oppressive criminal regime!״

Since the 1990s׳ Oslo Peace Process, most Israelis acknowledge that two peoples –

Jews and Palestinians – feel connected to the same land, which happens in many regions. Rejecting Jewish ties to the land rejects Judaism, Jesus׳s story rooted in Israel, and Koranic teachings. Sura 17:104 says ״the Children of Israel –

Dwell in the land….״ Deeming the Land of Israel exclusively ״Palestinian״ also ignores the land purchases of many early Zionists – often from Turkish land owners – and many international declarations validating a Jewish homeland in Palestine. These include the Balfour Declaration, the League of Nations׳ San Remo Declaration, and UN Resolution 181, which recognized Jewish ties to the land. Finally, Jews have centered their lives around Israel for 3500 years, while the formal Zionist movement began in 1897 at Basel, following other 19th-century initiatives, predating Hitler and the Holocaust.

״Didn׳t Israel׳s establishment create the Palestinian Refugee problem?״ versus ״The Jews created the Palestinian Nakba – catastrophe – by displacing 700,000 Palestinians in 1948!״

Obviously, without Israel׳s establishment, there wouldn׳t be Palestinian refugees, although the British might have retained control. But the Arab rejection of the UN׳s 1947 compromise partition plan followed by seven Arab armies attacking in May 1948, was the primary cause of the refugee problem. Since then, historians have vigorously debated just what happened – and the debate continues. It׳s clear that Israelis exiled some Arabs, sometimes intentionally, sometimes unintentionally. At the same time, many Palestinian Arabs fled at their leaders׳ insistence, expecting to return after the Jews lost. Others fled out of fear. War is hell. World War II displaced 40 to 60 million people. India׳s and Pakistan׳s establishment in 1948 displaced up to 20 million more. Only Palestinians pass on refugee status, generation to generation.

״Why are there still Palestinian refugee camps?״ versus ״The Jews oppressed the Palestinians and still imprison them in refugee camps!״

Jew-haters always blame the Jew. But Arab regimes perpetuated the problem, to justify fighting Israel while displaying little empathy for Palestinians. Most important, Palestinian leaders have repeatedly rejected compromises to share the land with the Jews – in 1947, 1967, the 1990s, and 2008. Many Arabs depicted ״Jewish statehood as ‘abnormal,׳ ‘unnatural,׳ ‘artificial,׳״ the political scientist Gil Carl Alroy explained, because the ״thought of the Jews as rulers suggests cosmic disorder.״ During the Oslo Peace Process in the 1990s, Israel relinquished administrative control of ״Area A,״ to the Palestinian Authority. Today, approximately 2.8 million of the 3 million Palestinians in the territories live in Area A or Area B, jointly administered by the PA and Israel. Less than a third of Palestinians live in the remaining refugee camps. So, the real question is: why haven׳t Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, and the PA resettled Palestinians from the 68 refugee camps they control?

״Didn׳t Israel occupy the Golan, the West Bank, and Gaza after the Six-Day War?״ versus ״In 1967, expansionist Israel greedily occupied even more territory!״

True, Israel expanded geographically in 1967. But Israel won the land in a legitimate war of self-defense it had tried to avoid. There were months of Arab threats to ״throw the Jews into the sea״ – again, note ״the Jews״ – and years of Arab cross-border attacks. Then, Egypt, Jordan, and Syria violated international law by blocking the Straits of Tiran. Calling the West Bank ״occupied״ freezes a complicated history over thousands of years, involving shifting borders and populations into one moment – the improvised border drawn with a green pencil in 1949 that became The Green Line, Israel׳s armistice line. The UN never recognized Jordan׳s control of those lands or Egypt׳s control of Gaza. In 1967, therefore, Israel seized territory that was in legal suspended animation. Those who call the land West of the Jordan River by their biblical names, ״Judea״ and ״Samaria,״ reflect the longstanding roots of Jews there. Acknowledging the confusion undermines each side׳s all-or-nothing narratives.

״Why do many find the settlements illegal?״ versus ״The illegal settlements reveal Zionism׳s settler-colonialist and imperialist mentality!״

An incendiary term, ״occupation״ evokes the Nazis׳ murderous ״occupation״ of Europe. Also, under international law, let alone the laws of history and military precedent, the Jewish people have rights to settle Gaza, Judea and Samaria/the West Bank, based on the 1917 Balfour Declaration, and the League of Nations׳ Mandate. On July 24, 1922, what became known as the British Mandate legitimized the ״close settlement by Jews on the land״ of Palestine, which covered the area from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. We can debate the wisdom of Jewish settlements in particular places, even the ethical rights and wrongs. But the constant attempt to criminalize Jewish settlement defies many international resolutions and escalates tensions.

״What happened to the Peace Process and the two-state solution?״ versus ״Oslo failed because the Zionist occupiers will never accept a Palestinian state!״

The Oslo Peace Process was an attempt in the 1990s to build peace through trust-building stages between Israelis and Palestinians, while reducing Israeli control over Palestinian lives. That׳s why Israel withdrew quickly from the six largest Palestinian cities, dominating ״Area A.״ Israelis were deeply divided. Many opposed returning Yair Arafat from exile and arming his dictatorial security forces. Oslo failed because Arafat encouraged his people in September 2000 – and earlier – to murder Israelis in cafes, on buses, while driving. In his memoirs, Bill Clinton recalls yelling at Arafat, ״You made me a failure,״ referring to Arafat׳s negotiating stubbornness and his addiction to terrorism. Since Palestinian terrorists murdered over one thousand Israelis in what is known as ״the Second Intifada״ from 2000 to 2004, many Israelis began to doubt the feasibility of a two-state solution. Instead of demanding ״two states for two peoples,״ which usually asks, ״how much territory will Israel relinquish,״ calling for ״two democracies for two peoples״ asks: ״what are the Palestinians doing to cultivate a civil society that engenders compromise and coexistence?״

״Why didn't the Gaza disengagement bring peace?״ versus ״Gaza was always occupied: Israel׳s blocked the borders and created the world׳s largest open-air concentration camp!״

Antisemites have appropriated Holocaust terminology and deployed it against the Jewish state. Even more revealing is what happened when Israel withdrew from every inch of the Gaza Strip in 2005 to avoid accusations of ״occupation.״ The accusations continued – and escalated. By 2007, Hamas seized power from the PA in a violent coup. The rockets continued flying. The violence culminated with the Hamas bloodbath. Most puzzling, perhaps, is how, even on October 7, 2023, as Hamas terrorists were still brutalizing Israeli civilians, many Palestinian supporters blamed Israel for being victimized.

״Why won׳t Israel control violence against Palestinian farmers in the territories?״ versus ״׳Settler Violence׳ reveals the Jewish intention to ethnically cleanse the West Bank!״

State violence, meaning war and the use of police powers, is hard enough to wield justly. Individuals acting violently, even for political reasons, are breaking the law. Citizens can defend themselves only when threatened personally. Most Zionists object to any Jew harassing Palestinian farmers and they consider them criminals. Alas, no country is perfect or filled with angels. It׳s legitimate to denounce criminals and mobilize politically to pressure the government to govern properly. That׳s not the same as condemning an entire state, the Jewish people, or individual Jews, for the sins of relatively few individual Israelis – or even Israeli government inaction.

״Didn׳t October 7 reflect deep Palestinian frustrations?״ versus ״October 7 was exhilarating; this is what decolonization looks like!״

On October 6, 2023, many Palestinians felt frustrated by the stalemated peace process. Yet nothing justifies mass rape, maiming young and old, slaughtering civilians, and kidnapping people. The butchery reflected the Hamas charter׳s exterminationist desire to destroy the Jewish state. That was the plan – and that was the rhetoric in the cries of ״Slaughter the Jew,״ in Arabic-to-Hebrew translation guides with phrases like ״take off your clothes״ or ״spread your legs,״ and the boasting about taking hostages and killing ״Jews.״ Moreover, crying ״Globalize the Intifada,״ celebrating these abominations, threatens not just Jews, but Westerners worldwide.

״Why did Israel kill so many civilians in Gaza?״ versus ״Once again, in the Gaza war, Israel responded with disproportionate force!״

The loss of even one civilian in war is a tragedy, not ״collateral damage,״ the Pentagon׳s sterile euphemism. But civilian deaths are inevitable in urban warfare, especially when fighting Hamas in Gaza, which embeds in hospitals, schools, and mosques. A fair debate would ask five questions: Was Israel justified in fighting back? Are its targets justified militarily? Did Israel try to minimize or reduce civilian casualties? How do its efforts compare to other modern armies, including when America fought in Iraq and Afghanistan? And what else could Israel have done?

״Why do many reasonable people, and international jurists, believe Israel is guilty of genocide in Gaza?״ versus ״Israel is committing genocide in Gaza!״

״Genocide״ has a specific meaning, like ״occupation״ and ״concentration camps.״ Israel responded to Hamas׳s October 7 invasion with a justified war of self-defense. Twenty-two months later, Hamas claimed 63,000 Gazans died. At least 23,000 were Hamas terrorists. By April 2025, Hamas spokespeople stopped claiming that 70 percent of the casualties were women and children, estimating that 72 percent of those killed between aged 13 and 55 were male, the age when Hamas deploys them to fight. Moreover, statisticians estimate that at least 8,000 Gazans died natural deaths, further reducing the number of civilian casualties. ״Genocide״ means the purposeful, intentional, systematic, mass destruction of a nation. Moreover, Israel has made many attempts to minimize the damage to Palestinian civilians, including repeatedly sacrificing the element of surprise or aborting justified missions to save lives.

Hamas does the opposite, often risking Palestinian lives to slow down Israeli forces and make them look guilty to the world. So Israel, in an impossible situation, is not only not guilty of ״genocide״ but has pioneered impressive techniques teaching other democratic armies how to protect an enemy׳s civilian population. Many words could be used to criticize Israel׳s counterattack. Why use that one?

״Doesn׳t squelching pro-Palestinian protests on campus threaten free speech?״ versus ״Jews exaggerate campus antisemitism by attacking mostly peaceful protesters exercising their freedom of speech!״

Many Israel supporters support free speech absolutely. But many pro-Palestinian protests and encampments escalated from expressing themselves with protected political speech, to bullying, intimidation, harassment, and violence. For years, campus culture sacrificed free speech to squelch even ״microaggressions,״ perceived slights against certain minorities. Suddenly, many rediscovered ״freedom of speech״ when the speech was anti-Jewish, and often involved criminal acts, among other ״macroaggresions.״ After years of frequently exaggerating, even deeming minor failures to make eye contact racist or sexist, too many campus leaders minimized the overt bigotry Jews encountered. Such hypocrisy reflects the bigot׳s double-standards.

״Is Donald Trump׳s initiative against campus antisemitism effective?״ versus ״Jews who support Trump׳s initiative are dupes just trying to silence any left-wing, anti-Trump academics!״

Today׳s all-or-nothingness is disturbing. Anyone concerned with minimizing antisemitism and improving academia should sift, figuring out which of President Trump׳s initiatives will indeed protect Jewish students and which threaten free speech and other democratic values. It׳s possible to support some of the programs while resisting government intrusion on campus governance, let alone Trump׳s assault on scientific and medical research.

Not every criticism of Israel is unjustified or antisemitic. Nevertheless, antisemites justify their antisemitism with any attack against Israel they make up. It׳s not that hard to avoid indulging in Jew-hatred while criticizing Israel – by sticking to the issues and acknowledging dilemmas rather than smearing wildly.