Between the Fight Against Antisemitism and Condemning Israel

When she turns her head left, she cannot fail to register the spectacular come back of antisemitism from within the liberal belly of Western democratic societies. This is palpable through the stunning increase of hate crimes against Jews everywhere in Western Europe and in the United States, through widespread public obsession with Israel and its actions, through the demonization of Zionism as a uniquely criminal ideology and through a boycott of Israelis reminiscent of the stigmatization and ghettoization of Jews of yore.

All of this wrapped in the claim that antisemitism doesn't exist, that it is a manipulative argument used by Jews or even better, that it is an understandable reaction to Israel's own actions. After October 7, the Jewish intellectual has been forced to sober up and recognize that antisemitism as an irrational force driving human affairs comes from within the ranks of its seemingly most democratic activists.

But when the same intellectual turns her head rightward and looks at Israel, she sees a society whose government believes God is personally involved in its anti-democratic decisions. This government has declared an endless state of war on Palestinians, preferring force to diplomacy.

Through a mixture of negligence, incompetence and inextinguishable desire for revenge fueled by the exceptionally cruel way in which Jews (and some non-Jews) were massacred on October 7, this society refuses to see and register the deaths and starvation it has engineered. (The incoming images of tortured hostages resuscitate periodically the collective agony of Israelis.) She sees a government which has de facto buried the idea of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state.

Confronted with this Janus face reality, which values should she draw on? Which group should she represent and defend?

We must not to choose between the fight against antisemitism and condemning Israel for its wrongdoings. We must hold both threads. Yes, this task requires us to abandon the facile binaries of this conflict. Now, we face a new challenge, and our critique must venture to do two things: Always remain vigilant to the unique history of this conflict while also carefully scrutinizing the set of words used to make sense of it.

The first is historical: Israel was not born in sin. It was not a payback for the Holocaust. Nor was it "colonialist" in the sense that the Germans or the English appropriated Namibia or India. The Jews always had a historical connection to Israel, and they had always been present there, making the concept of colonialism ill-suited. This country was created lawfully through military victory against Arab armies which rejected the UN decision that had recognized it in 1947. Its 7 million Jewish citizens do not have another homeland to where they can return.

If the word justice has any meaning, surely letting one of the most persecuted people in history live in peace on a tiny piece of land should be a moral imperative for the world. If Christians, Hindus and Muslims enjoy millions of kilometers, it is the moral responsibility of the world to ensure that the Jews can have the territory the size of New Jersey to secure their national existence. Any questioning of the legitimate origins of the State of Israel must be rejected and shelved.

The second precaution: Since Israel's inception, it has been in a state of permanent war, a fact intimately entwined with the unique hatred Jews and Israel seem to elicit. Millions of people were displaced after World War II and their misery has been largely forgotten.

A protester holds a Palestinian flag and a picture that reads, "Martyr Ismail Haniyeh" during a gathering calling for an end to Israel's war in the Gaza Strip and the starvation of Palestinian civilians, in Tunis, TunisiaCredit: Ons Abid / AP The history of the Palestinian people should be seen in this same light, compared to other displaced groups. We should ask why their statelessness has been so long-lasting, what Israel's role was in this fact, but also about the responsibility of the Arab world, the Palestinians and international bodies in this tragic fate.

A third precaution: Pay attention to reality on the ground. Europe lives in peace but Israelis do not and have not. They have real enemies who have made their daily lives miserable. The current debate over the question of whether Israel is committing genocide, overlooks that had Hamas freed the civilian hostages in its hands, it would have de facto ended the war and with it halted the destruction of Palestinian lives.

Yes, Israel too holds part of the responsibility for the suffering of Palestinians in Gaza and has caused disproportionate destruction, but surely Hamas bears its political responsibility for it. On October 7 Hamas knew an Israeli response would be ferocious. Yet they never offered its tunnels to its population to take shelter. It refuses to free hostages, thereby feeding into the extremist military policy of the Israeli government.

As Ahmed Fouad Alkhatib, a Palestinian born in Gaza and head of Realign Palestine, reports in The Atlantic Gazans are furious at Hamas fighters who loot food in disregard of the well-being of Gazans. "Their anger is directed primarily at Hamas, which they hold responsible for putting the people of Gaza in this position, and for its continued refusal to end the war it started."

Demonstrators gather during an anti-government protest calling for action to secure the release of Israeli hostages held captive in the Gaza Strip by Palestinian militants since the October 7 attacks, outside the Israeli Defense Ministry headquarters in Tel AvivCredit: AFP / Jack Guez

Israel is engaged in a war it did not start. Thus, we must recognize that Palestinians are political actors with interests who often resort to violence to pursue their goals. To recognize them the right to a state, as I do, we need not assume they are pure and innocent victims. Even 22 member states of the Arab League recognized this reality when, last week, in a historically unprecedented and watershed declaration they called on Hamas to disarm.

In this act, the Arab League showed it knows something many Western liberals seem unable to register: Hamas is a dangerous political actor, intent on destabilizing the entire Middle East. A fourth precaution: demands should not be made of Israel, which have not been made of any other country. The boycott of Israelis as Israelis is racist, plain and simple.

Who would think of boycotting Iranian academics because of their rogue regime? Who would think of boycotting Americans because of the numerous wars of political and economic domination their country has waged? Why haven't the more than 85,000 children who have died of starvation in Yemen due to the civil war in the last 10 years or the millions of displaced people in Sudan tickled the sensitivity of Western artists, intellectuals and students who are curiously nowhere to be seen or heard in these tragedies?

My point is thus relatively simple: Because the critique of Israel is so often dangerously close to antisemitism, it must be carefully scrutinized. Many do-gooders unknowingly recycle antisemitic worldviews. Those with minimal knowledge of the history of the conflict should stop making Israel into the sole culprit of the unfolding tragedy. In this case, our compassion for civilians, whether Palestinians or Israelis, cannot be our sole moral and intellectual guide.

The European Union and the United States must jointly demand a cease-fire from both sides. Blaming only one side, whichever it is, will not get us very far. The masses of Israelis fighting for their democracy and against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's policies should be supported, not boycotted.

Similarly, Palestinians advocating for a reformed Palestinian Authority in place of Hamas should be backed by Israel and the rest of the world. Gaza must be rebuilt to create a viable Palestinian state that does not threaten Israel's very existence. Despite the difficulty, some kind of trust must be forged between two badly traumatized people.

The world needs red lines. If the Netanyahu government seeks the permanent occupation of Gaza and if it undermines, as it has been trying to do, its judicial – and thus democratic – safeguards, then sanctions might become an adequate response. In the meantime: Friends of Israel must not avert their eyes from the nature of the government in Jerusalem, its misbegotten priorities, its incompetence and its no longer justifiable Gaza war.

But we must also remember that Israel's internal extremism is fueled by the external antisemitism from abroad.

Eva Illouz