Letters to the Editor, Re “Is Anti-Zionism Antisemitism, by Definition?”
NY Times 12/19/23
To the Editor:
What is Zionism? To me, being a Zionist in 2023 means that I accept the right and the necessity of the survival of the Jewish people and the existence of a Jewish state that ensures their survival.
Anything that undermines or threatens Israel’s survival also undermines or threatens the existence of the Jewish people and is, ipso facto, antisemitic.
Philip B. Berger
Toronto
To the Editor:
Jonathan Weisman describes radically different interpretations of Zionism as, alternately, a movement ensuring Jewish sovereignty and safety, or an oppressive colonialism. What is often lost in the debate is the historic diversity among many Zionisms (plural), which continue to struggle with one another for primacy today.
One version of Zionism is expansionist, deeply nationalistic and largely unconcerned about the human rights of non-Jews, while another version on the Zionist spectrum is profoundly humanist at its core and envisions an equitable coexistence between Jews and Palestinians.
Supporting a Zionism that promotes pluralism and shared society is the only vision for a better future for these two peoples whose fates are intertwined.
Andrew Vogel
Newton, Mass.
The writer is the senior rabbi at Temple Sinai in Brookline, Mass
To the Editor:
I am a Jew by culture and ancestry, albeit a secular one. I abhor contemporary violence by both Hamas and Israel. Historically, however, I have found that in recent years, Israel’s aggressive behavior has been the more objectionable, and Israel seems more determined to demoralize and destroy the Gaza population than to surgically remove Hamas.
In the 1950s, when I was a young child and Israel a struggling young state, I paid small sums to buy leaves that I pasted on a picture of a tree until I had bought enough for a tree to be planted in Israel in honor of my grandmother. My father bought Israel bonds — hardly the best monetary investment — in my name and those of my siblings. In the late 1960s and early ’70s, when I had my own children and when Israel had become an expansionist power, I asked him to stop.
Although a Jew, I am emphatically not a Zionist, and I resent and fear the conflation of the two.
Mark Cohen
Plattsburgh, N.Y.
The writer is distinguished emeritus professor of anthropology at the State University of New York.
NY Times 12/19/23
To the Editor:
What is Zionism? To me, being a Zionist in 2023 means that I accept the right and the necessity of the survival of the Jewish people and the existence of a Jewish state that ensures their survival.
Anything that undermines or threatens Israel’s survival also undermines or threatens the existence of the Jewish people and is, ipso facto, antisemitic.
Philip B. Berger
Toronto
To the Editor:
Jonathan Weisman describes radically different interpretations of Zionism as, alternately, a movement ensuring Jewish sovereignty and safety, or an oppressive colonialism. What is often lost in the debate is the historic diversity among many Zionisms (plural), which continue to struggle with one another for primacy today.
One version of Zionism is expansionist, deeply nationalistic and largely unconcerned about the human rights of non-Jews, while another version on the Zionist spectrum is profoundly humanist at its core and envisions an equitable coexistence between Jews and Palestinians.
Supporting a Zionism that promotes pluralism and shared society is the only vision for a better future for these two peoples whose fates are intertwined.
Andrew Vogel
Newton, Mass.
The writer is the senior rabbi at Temple Sinai in Brookline, Mass
To the Editor:
I am a Jew by culture and ancestry, albeit a secular one. I abhor contemporary violence by both Hamas and Israel. Historically, however, I have found that in recent years, Israel’s aggressive behavior has been the more objectionable, and Israel seems more determined to demoralize and destroy the Gaza population than to surgically remove Hamas.
In the 1950s, when I was a young child and Israel a struggling young state, I paid small sums to buy leaves that I pasted on a picture of a tree until I had bought enough for a tree to be planted in Israel in honor of my grandmother. My father bought Israel bonds — hardly the best monetary investment — in my name and those of my siblings. In the late 1960s and early ’70s, when I had my own children and when Israel had become an expansionist power, I asked him to stop.
Although a Jew, I am emphatically not a Zionist, and I resent and fear the conflation of the two.
Mark Cohen
Plattsburgh, N.Y.
The writer is distinguished emeritus professor of anthropology at the State University of New York.
International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) Definition of Antisemitism
https://holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definition-antisemitism
Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.
(Selected bullet points)
https://holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definition-antisemitism
Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.
(Selected bullet points)
- Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
- Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
- Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
- Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
- Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
- Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.
Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism
https://jerusalemdeclaration.org/
Definition
Antisemitism is discrimination, prejudice, hostility or violence against Jews as Jews (or Jewish institutions as Jewish)
Guidelines:
(redacted)
B. Israel and Palestine: examples that, on the face of it, are antisemitic
(whether or not one approves of the view or action)
https://jerusalemdeclaration.org/
Definition
Antisemitism is discrimination, prejudice, hostility or violence against Jews as Jews (or Jewish institutions as Jewish)
Guidelines:
(redacted)
B. Israel and Palestine: examples that, on the face of it, are antisemitic
-
Applying the symbols, images and negative stereotypes of classical antisemitism (see guidelines 2 and 3) to the State of Israel.
-
Holding Jews collectively responsible for Israel’s conduct or treating Jews, simply because they are Jewish, as agents of Israel.
-
Requiring people, because they are Jewish, publicly to condemn Israel or Zionism (for example, at a political meeting).
-
Assuming that non-Israeli Jews, simply because they are Jews, are necessarily more loyal to Israel than to their own countries.
-
Denying the right of Jews in the State of Israel to exist and flourish, collectively and individually, as Jews, in accordance with the principle of equality.
(whether or not one approves of the view or action)
-
Supporting the Palestinian demand for justice and the full grant of their political, national, civil and human rights, as encapsulated in international law.
-
Criticizing or opposing Zionism as a form of nationalism, or arguing for a variety of constitutional arrangements for Jews and Palestinians in the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean. It is not antisemitic to support arrangements that accord full equality to all inhabitants “between the river and the sea,” whether in two states, a binational state, unitary democratic state, federal state, or in whatever form.
-
Evidence-based criticism of Israel as a state. This includes its institutions and founding principles. It also includes its policies and practices, domestic and abroad, such as the conduct of Israel in the West Bank and Gaza, the role Israel plays in the region, or any other way in which, as a state, it influences events in the world. It is not antisemitic to point out systematic racial discrimination. In general, the same norms of debate that apply to other states and to other conflicts over national self-determination apply in the case of Israel and Palestine. Thus, even if contentious, it is not antisemitic, in and of itself, to compare Israel with other historical cases, including settler-colonialism or apartheid.
-
Boycott, divestment and sanctions are commonplace, non-violent forms of political protest against states. In the Israeli case they are not, in and of themselves, antisemitic.
-
Political speech does not have to be measured, proportional, tempered, or reasonable to be protected under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and other human rights instruments. Criticism that some may see as excessive or contentious, or as reflecting a “double standard,” is not, in and of itself, antisemitic. In general, the line between antisemitic and non-antisemitic speech is different from the line between unreasonable and reasonable speech.
Israel’s Greatest Threat? Unwavering Belief in Its Own Morality
DONNIEL HARTMAN
Rabbi Dr. Donniel Hartman is president of the Shalom Hartman Institute and holds the Kaufman Family Chair in Jewish Philosophy. He is author of the highly regarded 2016 book, Putting God Second: How to Save Religion from Itself, and is the host of the award-winning For Heaven’s Sake, one of the most popular Jewish podcasts in North America. Donniel is the founder of some of the most extensive education, training and enrichment programs for scholars,
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“For months now we have lived in a time of killing: The horrific barbaric killings committed by Hamas on Oct. 7, followed by killing in Gaza motivated by the hope that we will never again be the victims of such evil.
According to Ecclesiastes, there is a time and season for everything. A time to be born, and a time to die. A time to plant, and a time to uproot. A time to tear, and a time to sew. A time to keep silent, and a time to speak. A time for war, and a time for peace.
And yes, a time to kill. But also: a time to heal.
Some scholars see Ecclesiastes as representing a worldview that is morally relativistic, one devoid of the categories of good and evil, right and wrong. He sees a world where human choices are simply facts. We will be born. We will die. We will probably choose at some point in our lives to plant and procreate, moved by our predisposition to pursue our survival.
And at some point, we will likely choose to kill.
As history has proven over and again, killing is not an aberration. The 17th-century philosopher Thomas Hobbes viewed killing as core to the state of nature, as humans strive to claim our share. In this context, killing is not morally reprehensible, and there is no concept of just or unjust war. Killing and war are simply facts of life, guided by the imperative to survive and win
We who unequivocally condemn the barbarism of Hamas reject this relativistic worldview. Terrorism is an affront against humanity for those of us who see ourselves as moral beings obligated to live ethically.
In Israel, there are moral relativists, especially in the ultra-nationalist camp, but they are not the norm. Most Israeli Jews take pride in having, as we like to put it, ‘the most moral army in the world.’ But for much of the 75 years since the founding of the Jewish state, we have been forced to live in a time of killing.
This reality has given birth to the morally troubling ideology of ‘surviving the regional jungle,’ meaning a Middle East where we are surrounded by enemies. Proponents of this worldview see our neighborhood as being inhabited by individuals, groups and nations devoid of moral principles who see killing Jews as their right and duty.
Therefore, they argue, our survival requires suspending moral aspirations and doing whatever is necessary to continue to exist in a brutal neighborhood.
This approach is even more dangerous than Hobbes’ moral relativism, because its proponents can delude themselves into believing that they are maintaining their moral purity and standards, with all moral failure judged as the responsibility of the other. When the Arabs will put down their arms, they will say, Israel can return to its mission of spreading justice. Until such time when the ‘wolf will lie down with the lamb,’ as the saying goes, we must be the wolf.
This idea presents a greater danger to Israel’s survival than any Arab enemy — because it threatens our moral fiber and credibility in the international community.”
We Israelis also have a moral right and responsibility to self-defense against the evil that threatens us. But the idea of a just war includes the responsibility to fight that war justly. To do everything in one’s power to avoid and limit civilian casualties. To kill only to defend our nation’s security, not for vengeance. To pursue war as a last means and to bring it to a conclusion the moment one’s rights are secured — or when fighting another day will not result in furthering these rights. Or when the cost to civilians is greater than projected benefits in security.
I do not know whether the extent of death and destruction in Gaza are disproportionate to the war’s aims, and I am not arguing that it is now time for a ceasefire. I am arguing for the need to constantly question ourselves, encourage internal criticism and embrace the imperative to fight a just war justly. Doing so requires significant changes in Israel’s policies.
We live in a time of killing, but it is our sacred responsibility to never succumb to morally relativism. Ecclesiastes speaks both of a time to kill and a time to heal; to succeed we must always engage in the parallel pursuit of healing even during the time of killing. That means we must build field hospitals for civilians in Gaza whose hospitals we had to destroy. It is not enough for Israel to provide humanitarian corridors for people to escape battlefields. It is on us to build tent cities where Gaza residents can live safely until they are allowed to go home.
As an act of self-defense, war and the killing it invariably entails can be a manifestation of moral principles. As individuals who kill only in pursuit of defending life, there can never be a moment when our obligation to heal is suspended.
One’s commitment to human life and human rights can never be exhausted by a commitment to one’s right to self-defense.
As a people committed to human rights, it is also our responsibility — not only other countries’ — to provide food, water and other essentials for the noncombatants so they can survive this time of killing, which Hamas spawned. We entered Gaza and destroyed much of it only so that we could live. It is also our responsibility to enable Palestinians in Gaza to live, and to help in their healing.
The war in Gaza will come to an end. Some of its objectives will have been achieved. We now know that some will not. Tomorrow is coming — a day when it will be time to return to the task of building a society worthy of a people who have defined ourselves by the pursuit of justice and righteousness.
It may be our destiny that the time to kill will never fully end. It may be our destiny to always live between the time to kill and the time to heal. If so, let us embrace the totality of its challenges and moral responsibilities.
DONNIEL HARTMAN
Rabbi Dr. Donniel Hartman is president of the Shalom Hartman Institute and holds the Kaufman Family Chair in Jewish Philosophy. He is author of the highly regarded 2016 book, Putting God Second: How to Save Religion from Itself, and is the host of the award-winning For Heaven’s Sake, one of the most popular Jewish podcasts in North America. Donniel is the founder of some of the most extensive education, training and enrichment programs for scholars,
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“For months now we have lived in a time of killing: The horrific barbaric killings committed by Hamas on Oct. 7, followed by killing in Gaza motivated by the hope that we will never again be the victims of such evil.
According to Ecclesiastes, there is a time and season for everything. A time to be born, and a time to die. A time to plant, and a time to uproot. A time to tear, and a time to sew. A time to keep silent, and a time to speak. A time for war, and a time for peace.
And yes, a time to kill. But also: a time to heal.
Some scholars see Ecclesiastes as representing a worldview that is morally relativistic, one devoid of the categories of good and evil, right and wrong. He sees a world where human choices are simply facts. We will be born. We will die. We will probably choose at some point in our lives to plant and procreate, moved by our predisposition to pursue our survival.
And at some point, we will likely choose to kill.
As history has proven over and again, killing is not an aberration. The 17th-century philosopher Thomas Hobbes viewed killing as core to the state of nature, as humans strive to claim our share. In this context, killing is not morally reprehensible, and there is no concept of just or unjust war. Killing and war are simply facts of life, guided by the imperative to survive and win
We who unequivocally condemn the barbarism of Hamas reject this relativistic worldview. Terrorism is an affront against humanity for those of us who see ourselves as moral beings obligated to live ethically.
In Israel, there are moral relativists, especially in the ultra-nationalist camp, but they are not the norm. Most Israeli Jews take pride in having, as we like to put it, ‘the most moral army in the world.’ But for much of the 75 years since the founding of the Jewish state, we have been forced to live in a time of killing.
This reality has given birth to the morally troubling ideology of ‘surviving the regional jungle,’ meaning a Middle East where we are surrounded by enemies. Proponents of this worldview see our neighborhood as being inhabited by individuals, groups and nations devoid of moral principles who see killing Jews as their right and duty.
Therefore, they argue, our survival requires suspending moral aspirations and doing whatever is necessary to continue to exist in a brutal neighborhood.
This approach is even more dangerous than Hobbes’ moral relativism, because its proponents can delude themselves into believing that they are maintaining their moral purity and standards, with all moral failure judged as the responsibility of the other. When the Arabs will put down their arms, they will say, Israel can return to its mission of spreading justice. Until such time when the ‘wolf will lie down with the lamb,’ as the saying goes, we must be the wolf.
This idea presents a greater danger to Israel’s survival than any Arab enemy — because it threatens our moral fiber and credibility in the international community.”
We Israelis also have a moral right and responsibility to self-defense against the evil that threatens us. But the idea of a just war includes the responsibility to fight that war justly. To do everything in one’s power to avoid and limit civilian casualties. To kill only to defend our nation’s security, not for vengeance. To pursue war as a last means and to bring it to a conclusion the moment one’s rights are secured — or when fighting another day will not result in furthering these rights. Or when the cost to civilians is greater than projected benefits in security.
I do not know whether the extent of death and destruction in Gaza are disproportionate to the war’s aims, and I am not arguing that it is now time for a ceasefire. I am arguing for the need to constantly question ourselves, encourage internal criticism and embrace the imperative to fight a just war justly. Doing so requires significant changes in Israel’s policies.
We live in a time of killing, but it is our sacred responsibility to never succumb to morally relativism. Ecclesiastes speaks both of a time to kill and a time to heal; to succeed we must always engage in the parallel pursuit of healing even during the time of killing. That means we must build field hospitals for civilians in Gaza whose hospitals we had to destroy. It is not enough for Israel to provide humanitarian corridors for people to escape battlefields. It is on us to build tent cities where Gaza residents can live safely until they are allowed to go home.
As an act of self-defense, war and the killing it invariably entails can be a manifestation of moral principles. As individuals who kill only in pursuit of defending life, there can never be a moment when our obligation to heal is suspended.
One’s commitment to human life and human rights can never be exhausted by a commitment to one’s right to self-defense.
As a people committed to human rights, it is also our responsibility — not only other countries’ — to provide food, water and other essentials for the noncombatants so they can survive this time of killing, which Hamas spawned. We entered Gaza and destroyed much of it only so that we could live. It is also our responsibility to enable Palestinians in Gaza to live, and to help in their healing.
The war in Gaza will come to an end. Some of its objectives will have been achieved. We now know that some will not. Tomorrow is coming — a day when it will be time to return to the task of building a society worthy of a people who have defined ourselves by the pursuit of justice and righteousness.
It may be our destiny that the time to kill will never fully end. It may be our destiny to always live between the time to kill and the time to heal. If so, let us embrace the totality of its challenges and moral responsibilities.