Recent events at Oxford have brought to light tensions between left-leaning political movements and the Jewish community. These all revolve around one issue: Israel. On the one hand, many Jews, especially strongly pro-Israel Jews, take any criticism of Israel as antisemitism. On the other, it is convenient for antisemites to dress up their prejudice as anti-Zionism. This is, for example, similar to the Islamophobic discourse that hijacks otherwise justified criticism of human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia. There are elements of both of these taking place - and the combination is dangerous.

Antisemitism is indeed present in parts of the anti-Israel movement, as evidenced by the defacing of Holocaust Memorial Day posters in London. However, a knee-jerk reaction to criticism of Israel makes it harder to call this hateful prejudice out. It is unproductive for victims of violence in the Middle East, and for victims of antisemitism worldwide, not to acknowledge that much criticism of Israel is legitimate and not grounded in antisemitism. But clearly not all claims of antisemitism in these contexts are illegitimate.

Problems arise when left-leaning groups close their ears to Jewish members who say that anti-Israel discussion is starting to sound antisemitic. Dismissing these concerns as uncritical defence of Israel aimed at shutting down debate damages accountable discourse. It encourages an environment where antisemitism can develop and thrive unchecked, even if it wasn't truly present to begin with. It also alienates Jewish members. The exclusion, from university or other groups, of Jews who want to participate in the criticism of Israeli policies means that such groups lose access to some of the most relevant voices on the topic.

So, how do we address the real and significant experiences of antisemitism felt by Jewish students and others on the left whilst improving, not suppressing, the dialogue on the Israeli State's behaviour? We propose three solutions:

Firstly, people who identify strongly with the Jewish community but not with Israel should become more visible. For thousands of years the Jewish diaspora has reached the corners of the world, and a perception of Jewishness which equates it with Israel is reductionist and dismisses the experiences and existence of a huge number of Jews. Developing a more comprehensive idea of the diversity of Jewish identities undermines the ability of antisemites to take over the Israel discussion to spread their hate. It also makes it easier for Jews to call out (anti-Zionist and other) antisemitism without being accused of just blindly defending Israel.

Secondly, those political groups who criticise Israel should listen to Jewish members who are concerned about antisemitism. This will improve the safety of the Jewish members of these groups, and also strengthening the legitimacy of the groups' criticism of Israel by making it harder to dismiss it as mere antisemitism in disguise.

Finally, in the conversation around Israel we should let those who are most affected take the lead: namely, Jews and Arabs. Importantly, this includes Arab Jews, who suffer greatly from the Israeli-Arab conflict, essentially being attacked from both sides.

Israeli politicians sometimes sound as if they think they can speak for all Jews - but not all Jews are comfortable with Israel using their names and heritage to justify their policies. Including Jews with a variety of perspectives broadens the debate. And anti-Zionist groups which claim to be defending Arabs and Palestinians but which don't include any Palestinian members (or members from any Middle Eastern country at all) are liable to end up speaking over - not with - those they want to support. A group which doesn't include a single Middle Eastern person and is explicitly or implicitly hostile to Jews, drives out everyone involved in the conflict - how can such a group expect to make any meaningful progress?

In the past century and beyond, millions of Jews and Arabs have been targeted with violence. It is in all of our (Jews' and Arabs') interests to stop it, and, perhaps after the US government, we collectively have the greatest power to do so. A movement without Jewish and Arab leadership is impotent and liable to do more harm than good.

Jimi Cullen and Zad El Bacha are the founders of JAMA (the Jewish, Arab, and Muslim Alliance), an Oxford-based group aimed at building a positive alternative to the discourse of conflict. Jimi Cullen is a mathematician, and a DPhil postgraduate at Oxford of Polish-Jewish heritage. Zad El Bacha is an undergraduate at Oxford and of Lebanese heritage.