The US and the UK are both currently struggling with various politicians and their supporters who cannot seem to criticise Israel or Jews without crossing the line between legitimate criticism of Israeli policy and antisemitism.

In a phenomenon that seems unique to the Jews, who defied odds by succeeding throughout millennia of persecution, the bigotry against them morphs through the generations, disguised as the current zeitgeist to the point that knowing the difference between valid criticism and antisemitism is hard for even good people to see. Bigoted tropes are forgiven or justified as being not about Jews, of course, but about justice.

Witness today’s trends of social justice and intersectionality, where the categories of oppressor and victim are a zero sum game — nuance is lost, historical accuracy and geographic context are considered irrelevant. The historical victim — the Jew — is recast as the oppressor based on those external successes that defied the context in which they were achieved to begin with.

Jews are often thought to be white, powerful, successful. As such, they are divorced from the victimisation of the past, and are not allowed to have fears for their safety. Israel is strong, stable and successful; it cannot be a victim or have legitimate fears for its security.

The conversations around Israel, the Jews and antisemitism are further complicated by the already intensely polarised political arena. People (some sincerely) ask if it is possible to criticise Israel without being called antisemitic. Of course it is.

How can you tell legitimate criticism of Israel from antisemtism? Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks, Natan Sharansky and Yossi Klein Halevy all have excellent answers. Here, I will focus briefly on social media rhetoric, and how to tell well-meaning activists and critics from hateful trolls and antisemitic public figures.

Critics focus on policy. They know why a policy was implemented and when. For example: the security wall. They know where it is, why it was built, and the ramifications it has for both sides. They speak from a place of context, facts and logic.

AntiSemites focus on reaction. They scream “Apartheid”, “genocide” and “ethnic cleansing” to invoke the horrors of human history and making irrational comparisons that are patently false. They play on emotions and ignore facts.

 

Critics know history. They know the region, how the countries became what they are today. They know the wars and conflicts, the steps taken by both sides before and after the Jewish state was created. They acknowledge the reality of the region in which Israel exists.

Antisemites deny history. They deny Jewish origins in Judea, Jewish history in Israel and the Middle East. They call Jews European colonisers even though the previous generation was killed for not being European. They see Jewish historic claims as illegitimate.

Critics acknowledge Israel’s security concerns, the active threats to the country, and the deeply held belief that the survival of the Jewish people rests on Israel’s security.

Antisemites deny Israel’s concerns, ascribing nefarious motives to policies and actions. They deny state-sponsored terror, refuse to hold Palestinian leadership accountable for incitement and ‘pay for slay’, claim that terror attacks are a legitimate means of resistance to occupation. They ignore Israeli suffering.

Critics  speak of government policies and advocacy groups by assessing their actions as valid or invalid.

Antisemites  speak of conspiracy theories, Jewish cabals, Jewish money, globalists and the disproportionate power of the Jews.

Critics  stick to issues, offering analysis and solutions.

Antisemites avoid issues, yet blame Israel for the world’s ills.

Critics  compare Israel to other democratic nations and acknowledge other conflicts.

Antisemites  hold Israel to a standard all its own and give disproportionate attention to Israel, as compared to all other conflicts.

Critics  know the conflict is not absolute.

Antisemites  see Israel as absolutely in the wrong.

Critics  acknowledge wrong on both sides and call for solutions.

Antisemites  rarely acknowledge any wrongdoing in Palestinian action and call for the end of Israel.

Critics  recognise that both peoples have the right to security and peace.

Antisemites  say Zionists deserve neither.

Critics  speak in policy.

Antisemities  speak in slogans.

Critics  understand that “From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be Free” is a call for the ethnic cleansing of Jews and the end to the Jewish state.

Antisemites  do, too. But they chant it.

Critics  believe in Jewish rights to self determination and security and Palestinian rights to the same.

Antisemites  believe these pertain to Palestinians only, citing hard-left intersectional mantras about power constructs.

 

It’s not hard to differentiate between critics and antisemites. It’s only hard to believe it when you see it.