Posts on this subject are obviously fraught, so a few things up front:
- the moral question is simple: Palestinian liberation is right & necessary
- the praxis is complicated: antisemitic entryism into the movement for liberation is subtle, pervasive, and unacceptable
- the history is complicated: I have a survey of it which addresses many common misunderstandings on all sides
- I keep an index of resources — my posts and others’
The policy
A sharp-eyed Twitter acquaintance passed along a comment about how New York University has recently updated their nondiscrimination and anti-harassment (NDAH) policy to include this passage:
Using code words, like “Zionist,” does not eliminate the possibility that your speech violates the NDAH Policy. Speech and conduct that would violate the NDAH if targeting Jewish or Israeli people can also violate the NDAH if directed toward Zionists. For example, excluding Zionists from an open event, calling for the death of Zionists, applying a “no Zionist” litmus test for participation in any NYU activity, using or disseminating tropes, stereotypes, and conspiracies about Zionists (e.g., “Zionists control the media”), demanding a person who is or is perceived to be Jewish or Israeli to state a position on Israel or Zionism, minimizing or denying the Holocaust, or invoking Holocaust imagery or symbols to harass or discriminate.
My acquaintance was spooked “that ‘Zionist’ is specifically protected, in great detail, in a way that other identity categories are not”. I get it. But I think that the verbosity is necessary as a response to how hard these policy questions quickly become. (This is a good place to point to Reb Danya Ruttenberg’s Antisemitism Post™ as a useful touchstone.) I feel safe in presuming that the NYU NDAH policy is the work of many hands trying to thread the needle of how all at once:
- Criticizing Zionism is not necessarily antisemitic
- Many Israel apologists like to disingenuously claim that any criticism of Israel or Zionism is antisemitic
- Vicious, deliberately antisemitic hate speech often veils itself by substituting “Zionists” for “Jews” so they can claim, “but I didn’t say anything about Jews!”
- Sincerely misguided people with no intention of offering antisemitism often stumble into implicitly antisemitic misinterpretations of Zionism
- It can be difficult to distinguish when antisemitism is in play unless one is very sophisticated
Most of that verbosity attempts to provide some guidance for identifying when anti-Zionism drifts into categories #3 and #4. But there is a nasty landmine in that policy statement which I feel certain came from someone in Category #2:
For many Jewish people, Zionism is a part of their Jewish identity.
What criticism of Zionism would not constitute a discriminatory attack on a Jewish individual who considers it “part of their Jewish identity”? I presume that whatever committee assembled this policy was diligently listening to disparate perspectives, and was not sophisticated enough to see how that clause was a ploy to lock out anything other than pro-Zionist voices. The committee got played.
The policy statement itself is an interesting example of the difficulty of navigating this territory. But I created this post to capture the even stronger example which surfaced in the Twitter discussion which followed, exemplifying my frustration when people who understand themselves as advocating the right and necessary cause of Palestinian liberation say facile, wrong things about ‘zionism’ and refuse to admit any need take care to avoid antisemitism in their movement.
The discussion
Here’s my original comment summarizing the point above:
I think the detail there is mostly appropriate, in distinguishing accurate use of “Zionist” from its applications as an antisemitic euphemism.
A sealion showed up to argue with me. I have a protocol for that.
I share our exchange not to call them out, but to point to the exchange as an example of how “you must not criticize me while I am opposing genocide” provides license to dismiss antisemitism.
why do you think that’s an error?
the point isn’t to accurately describe the world. no one was tricked.
Most of the quotation is trying to address the difference between allowing legitimate criticism of Zionism versus protecting against use of ‘zionist’ as an antisemitic dogwhistle. “Part of their Jewish identity” is an entirely different argument …
the rule exists to prevent students from criticizing zionism. it does not exist to prevent “antisemitic dogwhistle[s]”
there is not a legitimate purpose to the rule, at all, and anyone who acts like there is (for example: you) has chosen to defend zionism.
I do, in fact, defend Zionism, in part because antisemitic dogwhistles about ‘zionism’ are very real.
if you think that’s important when the zionist occupation is killing people every day, you’re nothing more than a useful moron
This is a red flag. It implies that anything is justified by outrage at wrongs committed by Israel. It implies that naming any fault in any action taken in the name of countering Israel’s wrongs is illegitimate. You could skip the rest of this post; it mostly consists of me trying to get this interlocutor to name any example of antisemtism offered under cover opposition to Israel’s wrongs they would object to, and them refusing to.
If you think that antisemitic entryism into the movement for Palestinian liberation is irrelevant because of the genocide in Gaza, you are nothing more than a useful moron
Note that I say early on, and repeatedly, that Israel’s attack on Gaza is genocidal to signal that no, I am very far from an Israel hardliner looking to suppress anti-Israel criticism.
i think it’s irrelevant to campus policing except as an excuse to crack heads of people who think death is bad, which is precisely what this is!
It sounds to me like you don’t want to protect legitimate criticism of Zionism, you want to protect antisemitic “criticism of ‘zionism’”
BBC | Columbia campus protester apologises for ‘kill Zionists’ comments
well, you’re in good company ’cause it sounds to me like you want to attack criticism of zionism, not “antisemitic” criticism of zionism.
I am advocating the removal of the element of the policy which rightly offends you, so you are either dangerously confused or clearly dangerous
the policy as a whole is what offends me. if you’re incapable of concluding that from my words, the fault is not mine.
policing the language of people who criticize genocide is not a job for campus cops.
NYU has no interest in people saying “end the genocide, kill the Jews” on their campus?
You should reconsider.
My interlocutor did not reply. I handed them unequivocal antisemitism which they could join me in opposing, and they did not pick it up.
Another tributary in the forking of the Twitter exchange:
I do, in fact, defend Zionism, in part because antisemitic dogwhistles about ‘zionism’ are very real.
I also criticize Zionism for a host of reasons
The “part of Jewish identity” argument in the policy is, as you say, a disingenuous blanket defense of Zionism against such criticisms
and yet here you have chosen to carry water for a policy that only exists to prevent criticism of zionists.
No, I oppose the inclusion of “Zionism is a part of their Jewish identity” in the policy
i mean that you’re arguing the policy to ban criticism of zionism has a legitimate role at all, notwithstanding your quibbles over the exact wording.
your defense functions to protect the killers by arguing for this policy, even if you claim not to want it to.
No.
I’m defending the part of the policy which is legitimate because it does not ban criticism of Zionism.
For example, per the quoted text of the policy, saying “Zionists control the media” is an antisemitic conspiracy theory.
buddy, i do not plan to read your blogspam. i have no desire to be exposed to anything at all that comes from your mind unbidden.
Interesting that this person actively prefers the limited medium of Twitter to the opportunities for clarity in an essay.
That is the end of that fork. Backing up a step to catch another tributary:
Most of the quotation [from the NDAH policy] is trying to address the difference between allowing legitimate criticism of Zionism versus protecting against use of ‘zionist’ as an antisemitic dogwhistle.
“Part of their Jewish identity” is an entirely different argument. The “part” analysis implies a need to prevent any criticism of Zionism because those criticisms fault Jews for characteristics inherent in being Jewish. It is a much more expansive claim, built on a false premise.
If one wanted to prevent any criticism of Zionism, one would not make a distinction between legit criticism and antisemitic dogwhistles at all. If one wants to ground protections in that distinction, one would not make the “part of identity” argument.
The argument in the quote is at war with itself.
The likeliest explanation is that it was authored by someone unsophisticated about antisemitism who was trying to respond to a range of arguments from actors with very different analyses.
you’re being charitable to a degree that betrays either your simplicity or your complicity.
I am not. The “part of Jewish identity” argument is massively disingenuous.
If the authors of the policy wanted simply to prevent all criticisms of Zionism, they would have said only that.
that line exists so that title VII religion protections can be used, not because the author of the statement thinks some criticism of zionists is acceptable!
how credulous are you? do you trust when a matress store has a “going out of business” sale that lasts four years?
The author of the “part of Jewish identity” argument rejects any criticism of Zionists.
But that policy is clearly the work of many hands. If they wanted what the author of the identity argument wants, they would not have included all those details.
if they hadn’t included it, they wouldn’t be able to use protections against religious discrimination to defend the zionist colonial project.
you are too credulous to understand the world.
Why would they then muddy the water with the parsing of specific examples where ‘zionist’ serves as a veil over antisemitism?
That makes no sense.
the specific examples are the fig leaf! they exist to justify the policy to credulous liberal morons, even though it will certainly be used against any and all criticism of the zionist state, not just that which you consider illegitimate.
We started from [my Twitter acquaintance]’s criticism of the “fig leaf”!
My point is that the problem lies elsewhere, in the “identity” argument.
Will you please allow me to make the point that YOU ARE RIGHT?
the problem is the policy itself. it has no reason to exist except to punish criticism of the zionist project.
defense of any part of the policy contributes to the defense of that project.
there is nothing worth salvanging here.
Nothing worth salvaging? You oppose censure for
calling for the death of Zionists, applying a “no Zionist” litmus test for participation in any NYU activity, using or disseminating tropes, stereotypes, and conspiracies about Zionists (e.g., “Zionists control the media”)?
yes, i oppose a policy that bans any group from excluding zionists! obviously! that is antithetical to organized protest — if a group is not allowed to exclude their political opponents, what is the group for?
I think I agree with you on that point.
But you are dodging my question.
no, i an answering it with a resounding “yes”; i do oppose the thing you asked me if i oppose, and you agree that my justification is legitimate.
next question.
I dropped that fork to catch up on their replies to me completing a thought with a second tweet
Nothing worth salvaging? You oppose censure for
?calling for the death of Zionists, applying a “no Zionist” litmus test for participation in any NYU activity, using or disseminating tropes, stereotypes, and conspiracies about Zionists (e.g., “Zionists control the media”)
demanding a person who is or is perceived to be Jewish or Israeli to state a position on Israel or Zionism, minimizing or denying the Holocaust, or invoking Holocaust imagery or symbols to harass or discriminate
yes, because i am not an idiot.
that paragraph could be twisted to say that comparing the perpetrators of the genocide in palestine and the perpetrators of the genocides in the holocaust is antisemitic and against the policy. i assume it will be.
“any protections against antisemitism will obviously be used to defend the genocide in Gaza” is itself an antisemitic claim, Sibling.
I urge you to reconsider.
And yes, comparing the perpetrators of the genocide in Palestine with Nazis is antisemitic
The Nakba and ongoing oppression of Arab Palestinians in Israel and the occupation and the military policing of the PA and the escalation to genocidal violence in response to Hamas’ 10/7 attack are all nightmare horrors.
And it remains wrong to call Israel “like the Nazis”.
[The Nazis] built murder factories.
They fed the doomed a calculated amount which optimized death by starvation, so they could make sure they were not accidentally killing people faster than they could dispose of the bodies.
i am referring to the scholarship of professor Yeshayahu Leibowitz. are you saying that he is an antisemite?
YouTube | Prof. Leibowitz: There are Judeo-Nazis. Israel Represents the Darkness of a State Body.
FWIW, I do not find it useful to call anyone an antisemite: Nouning Considered Harmful*
I do think that just as we have a norm that white people must never use The N Word (even in service of saying not to use it!) so too one can call Israel “fascist” or “genocidal” but never “like the Nazis”.
Nested quotes (like the bit above beginning “The Nakba …”) is me quote-tweeting myself. My interlocutor Blocked me for a bit while they continued to reply to me. There is something magical about the times when a sealion comes into my mentions, I reply to their comments directed to me and no others, and then the sealion Blocks me when the conversation does not go the way they want.
A little later, they unBlocked me and picked back up.
it’s a yes or a no question. answer it with one of those.
do you actually believe “comparing the perpetrators of the genocide in Palestine with Nazis is antisemitic” or not? if you do, professor leibowitz’ comparison is antisemitic. if you don’t, please clarify your belief.
I have not yet watched the video in full, but a quick look indicates that yes, Liebowitz is doing antisemitism.
I wish I could say that one can trust anti-Zionism from Jews, at least, to not be antisemitism.
But the creepy cult zealots of the Torah Judaism Twitter account exemplifies how no, one cannot.
[From a thread which became a blog post I linked repeatedly in this discussion.]
Yes, comparing the perpetrators of the genocide in Palestine with Nazis is antisemitic.
I have a hard time finding a generous interpretation of your determination to protect making that comparison.
thank you for demonstrating the inconsistency of your positions by claiming that an orthodox Israeli professor’s scholariship is antisemitic for making legitimate comparisons between nazi and zionist ideologies and practices
My position is entirely consistent.
Compare Zionism with fascism. Compare the Nakba with the genocide of Native Americans. Compare Meir Kahane with Swami Aseemanand. I might agree!
Just don’t compare Zionists with Nazis. It should be obvious why.
nothing is obvious except how the Zionist project benefits from a blanket ban on comparison between them and the Nazi project
I encourage you to skip down to “the function of misrepresentation” [on this blog post] for an exploration of one reason why the comparison of Zionism to Naziism is antisemitic
i’ve already expressed my opinion on your blogspam. if you cannot be bothered to write about it here, i cannot be bothered to read your spoor.
There are plenty of other equally damning criticisms of Zionism to make.
Referring to Nazis is so very upsetting to many Jews — even those of us who are anti-Zionists! — that it is a deliberate insult and a manipulative tactic.
It is a choice with a clear meaning.
it is a comparison between two governments, both bent on the destruction of certain peoples not their own. refute it on the merits, unless you cannot.
if you cannot countenance this because it is “upsetting,” you are welcome to cloister yourself away from the public square.
The Nakba was genocidal. We must condemn it.
The current attack on Gaza is genocidal. We must fight to end it.
And the Nazis were categorically worse.
They built murder factories.
They fed the doomed a calculated amount which optimized death by starvation, so they could make sure they were not accidentally killing people faster than they could dispose of the bodies.
They put a sign over the door: “work makes freedom”.
you have literally admitted here that both regimes are genocidal, that both are motivated by racial animus and the desire to destroy another racial group.
and yet! you claim that any comparison between the two is unacceptable.
you can see why this comes across as dishonest.
I stipulate that yes, Jews take disproportionate offense to being compared to Nazis.
As Black people take disproportionate offense to white people using The N Word.
But so what?
If one says something offensive knowing that it will offend, whether or not it was justified one is responsible for the choice to offend.
Thus it is as antisemitic to compare Jews to Nazis as it is racist for white people to use The N Word.
I did not receive a reply on that branch. Switching to a related fork:
Yes, comparing the perpetrators of the genocide in Palestine with Nazis is antisemitic.
I have a hard time finding a generous interpretation of your determination to protect making that comparison.
I have to say, you are doing well at demonstrating the case for the verbosity about standards for talking about Zionism which had [my acquaintance] worried
funny, to me you seem to be eloquently demonstrating how these sorts of rules exist only to protect zionist interests, but ah well.
Saying “if you won’t let me call Zionists ‘Nazis’, you are only protecting Zionist interests” does not make the point you seem to think it does, Sibling.
you are no sib of mine
I am trying to remain mindful of our common humanity while you insist on the importance of protecting every expression of antisemitism in the movement for Palestinian liberation.
You are not making it easy.
no, you’re a liar. don’t twist my words.
where precisely did i argue for the “protecting of every expression of antisemitism” in any movement?
i decried the blanket ban of comparing two specifc genocidal regimes, because there are useful comparisons to be made.
that you can’t denigrate me without outright lying about what i’ve said doesn’t make you look more honest, Buddy
You said here that opponents of the genocide in Gaza have a right to say anything. Is that not protecting every expression of antisemitism they might make?
the policy as a whole is what offends me. if you’re incapable of concluding that from my words, the fault is not mine.
policing the language of people who criticize genocide is not a job for campus cops.
I said policing the language was not a job for campus cops. i did not say that it should never be discussed.
it is job for the Palestinian people and no one else. it is especially not a job for those who are aligned with the zionists killing them, like american police.
I believe that, given the horrors they face, we should cut Palestinians significant slack for intemperate language.
That does not extend to allowing them to adjudicate what constitutes antisemitism.
What group other than Jews would you subject to that standard?
i’m not subjecting any racial or religious group to any standard
i am saying that any person should be allowed to compare genocidal regimes to each other, and that attempts to stop this function only to protect those genocidal regimes.
i do not think that any genocidal regime should be afforded any special considerations regarding the language we used to discuss it because those considerations will always be used to silence the critics of those genocidal regimes.
it is acceptable to allow for some offensive speech in the criticism of any government which is committing a genocide because stopping any genocide is more important than stopping offensive speech.
you are making the case that some speech is so offensive, we should have rules against it — rules which you have acknowledged will be used against legitimate criticism of genocidal regimes — while i think that there is no speech so offensive that banning it is worth this.
My position is entirely consistent.
Compare Zionism with fascism. Compare the Nakba with the genocide of Native Americans. Compare Meir Kahane with Swami Aseemanand. I might agree!
Just don’t compare Zionists with Nazis. It should be obvious why.
If you object to this standard, then you should see why I think you are really just looking for license to say antisemitic things rationalized as protest against Israel’s genocidal attack on Gaza
i don’t think that’s true, and i definitely don’t think you’ve presented any reasoning that would make it true.
why should i see that? certainly not because you’ve explained it. Certainly not because it’s obvious to everyone; it is not obvious to me.
present your argument!
If you cannot make your case with reference to fascism, every other genocide in history, and every other political movement in history?
If you really need to call Jews “Nazis” to make your case?
That is not a case worth making.
where, exactly, did I say that anyone “need[ed]” to call anyone anything?
I said that the restrictions you think the discussion of genocide should be subject to serve no one except genocidal organizations.
you can evidently read. don’t act like you can’t.
The restriction I have focused on — because you have decided to advocate against this restriction — is Don’t Call Jews “Nazis” and Don’t Call ‘Zionists’ Nazis Because That Lands As The Same Thing.
yes, restricting criticism of a specific genocidal organization serves only that organization. conflating criticism of the zionist occupation of palestine with the writings of Turner Diaries enthusiasts serves that same genocidal cause.
Who is conflating criticism of Israel with the writings of Turner Diaries enthusiasts? Not me.
you are saying that any comparison between the zionist state and the nazi state is antisemitic, yes?
i am using the term as a metonym for “antisemitic” to emphasize the lack of governmental power held by those who’s distasteful speech you think should be criminalized.
I should note that that anti-Zionist tic of referring to Israel as “The Zionist State” singles out Israel as uniquely illegitimate among nations, which is a red flag.
You are making a huge leap there.
The Turner Diaries is a racist, antisemitic manifesto for a bloody fascist revolution.
I can fault the racism of a white friend using The N Word while singing along with a hip hop song without saying it is as bad as The Turner Diaries.
By that same principle, your enthusiasm for comparing Israel to Nazi Germany is antisemitic, but it is nowhere near in the same weight class of antisemitism as The Turner Diaries.
I received no reply. Stepping back to get one last fork:
The restriction I have focused on — because you have decided to advocate against this restriction — is Don’t Call Jews “Nazis” and Don’t Call ‘Zionists’ Nazis Because That Lands As The Same Thing.
Are you really saying this only serves “genocidal organizations”?
Like you, I want to avoid creating an instrument for blocking any criticism of Zionists & Zionism. This discussion started from me objecting to the “Jewish identity” clause in the NYU policy because of that problem!
So what bad restrictions do you see me advocating?
Is there any conceivable comment made in the name of countering the genocide in Gaza which you would object to as antisemitic?
certainly there are comments i would object to on the basis of their innacuracy.
that does not mean that i would ever support a policy to punish people for making them, because i know that it can also be used as a weapon to suppress perfectly legitimate criticisms.
So your answer is no, you cannot think of any comment made in the name of countering Israel’s genocidal attack on Gaza which is actionable.
“Free Palestine! Kill the Jews!” contains no “inaccuracy”, so it is both OK with you and should not be subject to action by NYU?
if you are going to keep pretending to be subliterate in order to misrepresent what i have said, i am not going to continue entertaining you
I have yet to hear you identify any comment made in the name of countering Israel’s genocidal attack on Gaza which you would consider meaningfully antisemitic, much less actionably antisemitic.
So I posed an example to see what you think of it. Hence the question mark.
Your comment “that does not mean that i would ever support a policy to punish people for making them” seems utterly clear that there is no comment made in opposition to Israel’s genocidal attack on Gaza which you consider actionable.
Perhaps you want to rephrase?
Lemme take a step back here.
I recognize that powerful hardline Zionist organizations show up to disingenuously claim that every criticism of Israel constitutes “antisemitism”.
As I am Jewish, my disgust at that is intense.
And it should be obvious how the movement for Palestinian liberation presents an opportunity for entryism by, as you put it, “fans of The Turner Diaries”.
As I am Jewish, my dread over that is intense.
And I agree that Israel’s genocidal attack on Gaza is horrific and requires the strongest efforts we can muster to stop it.
As I am Jewish, my disgust that Israel claims to commit these atrocities in my name enrages me.
So not for nothing, for months the Tweet I have kept pinned on my profile emphasizes how unfair it is that we have navigate disingenuous claims about antisemitism by the worst people, on all sides, while we confront these horrors.
It is profoundly unfair to the important — and currently urgent — cause of Palestinian liberation that it is a minefield of deceit and outright lies in all directions, plus accidental & deliberate antisemitism.
But one must step carefully. Please do.
So please register that I am not trying to trick you into accepting fetters on our efforts to end the genocide.
And please also register that this flak from you exemplifies why Jews who oppose Israel’s wrongs do not step up more.
Those were my last comments to my interlocutor, and they have not replied.
I wish I were surprised that I have not received any example from them about a statement which would be out of bounds.
