The Urgent Need for a Progressive Approach to Antisemitism

As the establishment fails to address antisemitism, and progressives remain on the defensive, a new approach to antisemitism has to be created if Jews are to be safe in America and beyond.

The last few weeks have revealed a lot about antisemitism in America and the world at large.

In Los Angeles, where I live, the community has been shaken by multiple stories, including an incident where a man broke into the home of a Jewish family, wielding a knife, and said, “Free Palestine, free Palestine” and “Jewish people, you need to kill Jewish people.”

In New York, a man punched a woman in the subway. When she asked him why he did it, he claimed it was because she was Jewish.

In Miami, a man threatened to blow up a synagogue, claiming he was part of Hamas.

But some of the worst incidents occurred outside the US. In Russia, a mob tried to attack a flight they believed was coming from Israel after messages on Telegram declared that the plane was carrying “Jewish refugees.”

In Germany, a synagogue was firebombed. In Tunisia, a synagogue was burned down. France has had dozens of incidents.

All of this, combined with the horror of the massacre on October 7th, has made Jews the world over deeply anxious, if not traumatized.  To make matters worse, the war in Gaza, and our need to either defend it or stand against it, has made it so that we have not had time to process our trauma. 

As if that wasn’t enough, social media has made any public dialogue on this subject toxic: the politicization of charges of antisemitism combined with the steadfast refusal to take its dangers seriously has made it virtually impossible to have productive discussions on the topic.

The result is a chaotic rhetorical landscape, one that makes the need for experts on antisemitism to engage seriously with this historic moment. But, for now, many have made matters worse.

The Failure of the Establishment

Among the establishment, in large part, we are not seeing a commitment to fight antisemitism as much as step over others to ensure support for the war.

The Anti-Defamation League and its CEO Jonathan Greenblatt have been spending an inordinate amount of their public energy undermining and attacking progressive groups, including Jewish ones. Greenblatt called IfNotNow and Jewish Voice for Peace  (the two organizations most vocal about calling for a ceasefire) hate groups and the “photo inverse of white supremacists”. 

Worse, Avi Mayer the Editor in Chief of the Jerusalem Post, has argued that the people in these groups should be removed from the Jewish people as a whole.

They also have gone after the entirety of Students for Justice in Palestine, accusing them of material support for Hamas, a move that caused the ACLU to blast them in a statement, calling them out for repeating the history of McCarthy witch hunts and the atmosphere post-9/11. 

Even if all the accusations of the ADL had merit, it is its approach in this moment that needs to be examined and which should give Jews in America pause.

Yes, there are very real issues occurring on campuses around America. But is the solution to go after the entirety of Palestinian rights organizations on those campuses? 

And the attack on Jewish groups protesting the war and arguing generally for the end of the oppressive policies in Israel (IfNotNow, for example, is not an anti-Zionist organization but is instead aimed at ending the occupation and apartheid) does not feel in any way to reflect any substantial argument about antisemitism as much as a demand that American Jews remain loyal to Israel (ironically enough, this is an antisemitic canard).

In the same month this all occurred, the ADL dropped its campaign calling out Chaya Raichik, the creator of Libs of TikTok, who has directly contributed to bomb threats and harassment trans youth and against schools and hospitals that have provided support to trans youth. She has also indirectly contributed to the massive rise in anti-queer violence around the country.

It also dropped its campaign to remove ads from X (formerly Twitter) after Musk spent weeks spreading antisemitic conspiracy theories about the group as well as spending his entire tenure destroying the infrastructure that protected Jews on the platform and spreading antisemitism himself. 

(I have been outspoken about Musk’s antisemitism, writing that he was the most dangerous antisemite in America as well as bringing together a coalition of Jewish leaders to call for an end to large companies advertising on the platform).

The ADL isn’t alone: it is, in fact, representative of the overall Jewish establishment’s approach to fighting antisemitism. The American Jewish Committee, America’s oldest and likely largest Jewish advocacy organization, has similar views on everything from the war to progressive Jewish groups to Elon Musk are almost word for word the same.

Here are the problems with this approach:

1. These groups are working as if Jewish safety cannot coexist with the safety of others, whether it be in America or Israel. Going after Palestinian student organizations presents the choice as zero sum: you either support Jews or you don’t. And if your interests are in conflict with Jewish interests, you need to be squashed.

2. As America becomes more polarized, so do our institutions. This is just as true for Jewish establishment organizations, which are trying desperately to maintain unity. In effect, this means repeatedly folding to conservative interests.

3. By repeatedly committing to blind support for Israel, these organizations often have to balance the safety and interests of of Israelis and the safety and interests of American Jews, which at times can be at odds. While it is absolutely true that American Jews have a strong emotional attachment to the land and people of Israel, the majority are deeply critical of Israel’s right wing government. All of this shouldn’t be surprising considering that American Jews are mostly liberal while Israeli Jews are becoming more conservative. The result is things like considering anti-war Jewish groups as a threat to the Jewish people, which actually puts them in extreme danger domestically (imagine the ADL refusing to protect them if a Republican government decides to target them, for example).

This is particularly dangerous as the Republican Party and the right become more nakedly antisemitic. When Donald Trump was president, organizations needed to balance the danger he represented to Jews with his steadfast support for Israel. This is a big reason why they will spend much more energy focused on a single Muslim congresswoman than any Republican.

4. Most Jewish establishment organizations are based around the concept of top-down approaches to Jewish safety. This means working with politicians, law enforcement, and mainstream media to essentially lobby for Jewish safety. On the one hand, this makes a lot of sense: for obvious reasons, having the centers of power protect us should be something every minority should have. The problem, though, when you live in an unequal, unjust society is that this can hurt other minorities. It also means that they are almost always at odds with any grassroots movement, from Jewish to social justice to Israel. This is a big reason much of their interfaith work is largely for show: a separation from and attack on grassroots movements in the Muslim world, for example, put them at odds with the reality on the ground.

It also helps explain their continued folding to power players like Elon Musk. Many leaders of these organizations operate like politicians: they pick their battles and cajole powerful antisemites when they can and punch down to those they consider vulnerable. In theory, it could be argued this approach is necessary, but the ultimate result is constantly-comprised principles.

The Need for Establishments

While all of these issues are true and deeply problematic, the other side of the coin is that these organizations are also essential parts of the Jewish world and Jewish safety in America. The ADL’s devotion to top-down approaches to antisemitism do indeed keep Jews safe, and anyone hoping for them to fail is likely unaware of the amount of infrastructure they represent. If they disappeared tomorrow, Jews would be far less safe.

It is also important to add an important caveat: these are issues that are largely in the public eye. The work behind the scenes and the actual anti-extremism work in these organizations is absolutely essential and the people working in these areas are often done a disservice in all the critiques that get thrown around. The ADL’s Center on Extremism is considered the leading anti-extremism organization in America, and its team is absolutely top notch. 

Similarly, the AJC works with government institutions, lobbies for stronger hate crimes legislation, supports and trains security among Jewish institutions, and much much more. These cannot simply be discounted. Just about every bit of infrastructure in the Jewish world in America is essential to our safety, even if much about them is flawed.

The Need for Progressives

All of this paints a pretty dark picture of American Jewish safety. And it’s true: debate America’s growing bigotry all you want, the simple reality is that the organizations that protect us are not living up to the moment. Antisemitic incidents are higher than ever, and rather than leading to introspection or change in approaches, the same old approaches are getting more entrenched. In fact, the more antisemitism increases, the more people believe these organizations deserve support. And while that is true on one level, it is also shocking that there have been relatively few demands for drastic changes to address what should ultimately be considered at least a partial failure.

So what’s the answer? To, me it’s obvious.

It’s time for a progressive revolution in fighting antisemitism.

Ultimately, every single weakness of the establishment can be addressed through a progressive lens: it is ultimately unsustainable to fight antisemitism at the expense of others (it is also immoral, but that’s for another time). Any group that attacks Jews is almost always by definition attacking other groups, and just as often it goes the other way as well.

For example, the Tree of Life massacre was done by a white nationalist who wasn’t just angry at Jews: he attacked the synagogue specifically because of their support for refugees. He was concerned about “Great Replacement,” “white genocide,” and “globalism” both of which are just as racist and xenophobic as they are antisemitic.

The Buffalo shooter who targeted Black people, like the Tree of Life shooter, was motivated by the Great Replacement conspiracy theory.

Much of transphobia, as well, is also rooted in antisemitism: hate groups use antisemitic tropes to target trans people. And transphobia, in turn, is used to recruit people into antisemitic beliefs and hate groups.

And despite the characterization of extremist Islamist groups as a sort of progressive movement, the reality, of course, is that they are authoritarian and far right in their frameworks, hating not just Jews but gay people and trans people as well as oppressing women. Not only that, many of the recent antisemitism among these groups has been rooted in the same myths as white nationalists. The reason being that they have also adopted the guidebook for Western antisemitism, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

Jews in many ways are actually the best positioned to build solidarity with other groups: so much of the bigotry in so many parts of the world is in some way connected to antisemitism. And without a serious analysis of the connection, and a concerted effort to get to the root of the hate, they will persist.

Unfortunately, much of our history and establishment is working against us. Which, again, is why a progressive approach to antisemitism could be so beneficial.

The Failure of Progressives

The problem, however, is that most Jewish progressive groups have almost the opposite problems of the Jewish establishment: they are so devoted to solidarity that they often have trouble fighting for Jews.

(For the record, I am a member and advisor to a number of these groups, so what I write here is both out of love and includes myself in its critique).

The attack on October 7th showed this in stark relief: many of these groups, out of a well-intentioned desire to address the root of the problem in Israel, jumped to issue statements before the full devastation of the attack was evident. They reasserted their solidarity with the Palestinian struggle and pointed out that the occupation is the root of the problems in Israel.

This alone put them at odds with the devastating pain that resulted from the worst single day attack on Jews since the Holocaust. In terms of deaths, the attack was the equivalent of more than 100 Tree of Life shootings. And even the shooter in that attack didn’t torture, rape, and behead the victims.

Regardless of the important politics and context around the situation, this was a horrifying and traumatic event for Jews around the globe. 

Worse, almost instantly, even before the horrifying war on Gaza, antisemitism exploded on the left in America. These were not minor cases, even if they were fringe: anyone with their eyes open could see the way some not only dismissed the victims of the attack, but openly justified the attack. 

To Jews, who have a history of being in the middle of strife between both ruling entities as well as those they oppress, this awoke a double fear. To have progressive Jewish groups initially show solidarity with anyone but Jews, I think, hurt them immensely. And scared them. 

This was indeed a failure, one that they tried very hard to correct as the full devastation of the attacks and the antisemitism it unleashed (especially once the war started) became clear. Even still, for good reason, many of them have been focused on the war. The calculation appears to be: there is, at the least, a war with massive civilian casualties and, at worst, a genocide happening in Gaza: how could the comfort of American Jews possibly compare to that when it comes to their activism?

This is simply not a tenable or sustainable vision: Should Jews of all people stop fighting antisemitism whenever Israel engages in immoral acts, no matter how horrific? Isn’t that exactly a moment that antisemites use to increase antisemitism? And aren’t progressives, of all groups, the best to address hate in this moment?

This blind spot, I would argue, is the perfect example of the way solidarity has become such a commitment that it has become its own obstacle. It is part of what isolates them from other communities in the Jewish world, but it also hurts the solidarity itself: if antisemitism is not a big part of the discussion in progressive circles, they miss the benefits that work would provide to others.

There is another important dynamic occurring: the obsessive focus establishment Jewish groups have had in attacking progressive Jews has resulted in them becoming deeply defensive, both for themselves and for others. There is a logic to this: antisemitism accusations have become heavily politicized and are often used to marginalize progressives and, especially, marginalized groups. This is especially true in any discussion on Israel, as I noted earlier. And as conservatives become both more extreme and more influential as donors, these dynamics have become exaggerated.

So progressive Jewish groups end up running defense: they focus on what isn’t antisemitism instead of what is. And while that work matters, it also puts them into a corner: rightly or not, they are seen as defenders of antisemites. Or, at best, naive. None of this helps their cause, except among other progressives. But even then, they are not leading. In so doing, they are doing exactly what the establishment wants: marginalizing themselves among Jews and the mainstream.

The result of all these dynamics is a massive vacuum that ultimately only has one group truly committed to addressing antisemitism: the establishment. All the dynamics of the establishment and all the dynamics of the grassroots progressive movements feed each other, creating a bigger and bigger gap on antisemitism discourse. All of this does the exact opposite of the progressive revolution in addressing antisemitism that is so badly needed.

The Answer

All of which begs the question: What should be built and how should progressive Jews and other progressives fill this gap?

(There are some projects being worked on already that I’m aware of, but I am going to address this in terms of what is public).

First, the progressive movement needs a group that is specifically committed to fighting antisemitism. It needs to stop being only a side project of other groups: it needs to be prioritized in the same way that racism, homophobia, and other forms of hate are also addressed by grassroots progressive movements. Until there is truly a committed alternative to the establishment that rivals them in some way, there is not even a point in griping about the gap.

Second, this and other progressive Jewish groups need to model not just how they can fight for others, but how they can truly stand with Jews. This includes right wing Jews, bigoted Jews, Orthodox Jews, Zionist Jews, and every other Jew they have moral problems with. They don’t need to justify any beliefs they disagree with, but they do need to defend them. Because ultimately, the antisemites come for all of us, and at various times they will find ways to pit groups against each other in order to achieve their ends. An awareness of how this works, and how to prevent falling for it, as well as lead in showing an alternative approach, can revolutionize how we deal with antisemitism as a people.

Third, they need to model how antisemitism is essential to the work of solidarity. Meaning, they need to show how and why antisemitism is an urgent issue, and why even when Jews seem safe they often are on the precipice of danger. But, just as important, they need to show how solidarity with Jews helps others: how antisemitism is a motivating factor of other forms of bigotry, how conspiracy theories can lead to multiple groups being in danger, and how working together to address these dangers can provide much more safety to all groups involved.

Finally, they need to provide a theory of antisemitism that is a true alternative to the traditional forms we have seen floated. The Jerusalem Declaration, meant to be an answer to the IHRA definition of antisemitism, but suffers from the issue that plagues too many progressive approaches: it spends too much time focused on Israel, even though the goal is to minimize harmful approaches to blanket assertions on Israel. The end result is that, again, Israel becomes the ultimate focus of the document. 

And either way, no one document will be enough. We need a larger theory of antisemitism that is discussed and debated throughout movements and that through its very nature is infused into our dialogue. 

Luckily, there are many experts, historians, and scholars who have done exactly this. The issue is more in synthesizing and then translating these ideas more into the mainstream discourse as well as using them to help guide the work itself.

Hope

All of this, to me, actually gives me a lot of hope. The issue is not that we are unequipped to fight antisemitism. We have a lot of the infrastructure for this work already in existence: solidarity work is being done. Progressives care about antisemitism, they just need more guidance. Many Jews, especially young ones, are aware of the gaps in the leadership above them and are looking for a better alternative.  The Jewish progressive movement is growing exponentially and is incredibly well organized, with some of the biggest and most dramatic demonstrations against a war in the history of American anti-war protests.

There is a willingness and awareness that this work needs to be done. As the gap becomes more obvious between the establishment and the on the ground antisemitism, as well as the far right’s ascent in America (and the establishment’s acquiescence to them), and more people care about grassroots work, there has been an interest in alternatives even among many in the establishment. All of this they say off the record and in hushed tones, but the awareness of this need is high.

This means that there has never been a moment more ripe to readdress antisemitism from a fresh perspective along with new institutions. The establishments themselves also have a chance of evolving, if only they are motivated to and some of the stranglehold of leadership and donors is lessened.

In spite of all the darkness, I am actually more hopeful than ever that change is on the horizon. All we need is to grasp it.