How to Criticize Israeli Policy Without Inadvertently Feeding Antisemitism

Some arguments, while not antisemitic, open the door in ways that are dangerous. Let’s avoid those.

The other day I sat in on a focus group of Democratic voters that included a discussion about Israel and Gaza.

There was plenty of criticism of Israel. That wasn’t surprising. Poll after poll shows that Democratic voters have become far more critical of the Israeli government, particularly the devastation in Gaza and now the war with Iran.

What stuck with me wasn’t the criticism itself. Rather, it was how a handful of participants – not a majority, but enough to notice – described Israel. They talked about Israel as though it had deeply penetrated the American government, controlled U.S. foreign policy, dictated a vast majority of spending decisions and effectively pulled the strings of American politics. It was disturbing. And it crossed the line into antisemitic rhetoric.

I’ve also spent the last several months reading statements from many of the new ultra-progressive candidates running on anti-Zionist platforms. Some say things I strongly disagree with. A few say things I find genuinely outrageous. But for the most part, they’re expressing views that are well within the bounds of legitimate political debate.

The problem lies in how these arguments – when taken in concert with comments from fringe talking heads on social media – are being translated for voters and average Americans who do not spend most of their waking hours sorting through the latest news from the region and the political realities of the US-Israel relationship. What I heard from the focus group participants was a filtered-down version of anti-Zionist political arguments with antisemitic tropes quietly taking the place of nuance and the ability to hold multiple truths at once.

The flip side of this problem is that large swaths of the Jewish community go in the other direction. In an environment of rising antisemitism, to many American Jews’ ears, even more nuanced and careful statements delivering often warranted sharp criticism of Israel translate immediately into antisemitism. It’s deeply frustrating when some in the Jewish community respond as though virtually every criticism of Israel is itself antisemitic. This dynamic is just as wrong.

The challenge we’re facing isn’t that American politicians have chosen to (often justifiably) sharply criticize Israel. The problem is that certain arguments, even when made without antisemitic intent, have echoes of antisemitic tropes that public servants have an obligation to treat seriously and avoid.

Here are a few examples.

Don’t Tell People Israel Is Why They Don’t Have Medicare

One of the most common arguments you see on the left is that the United States shouldn’t be sending Israel $3.3 billion annually in military assistance or selling Israel weapons when those bombs have killed thousands of civilians in Gaza.

That’s a perfectly legitimate policy argument.

If you believe American weapons are being used in ways that violate U.S. law or contribute to war crimes in Gaza, that’s a sufficient argument for ending military assistance.

Where I become uncomfortable is when the argument shifts from “we shouldn’t provide these weapons or funding” to “the reason you don’t have health care, affordable housing, or other social programs is that we’re giving money to Israel.”

That simply isn’t true. $3.3 billion per year is a lot of money. It makes up roughly half of America’s overall Foreign Military Financing budget, which is a massively disproportionate amount and one of a number of reasons why I think it should be phased out.

But this aid is not the reason Americans don’t get healthcare. The United States defense budget being promoted by the Trump Administration and Congressional Republicans next year could be roughly a trillion dollars. Aid to Israel is less than 0.4% of that.

The real issue is America’s overall spending priorities, especially those of the Republican Party, not one particular aid package that is a tiny portion of the national budget. Republicans made the same dishonest argument about USAID, and used it as the reason to shut it down with catastrophic consequences.

More importantly, this line of argument begins to blend into something far more dangerous: The idea that Jews or Israel are taking money away from ordinary Americans through their control of the U.S. government. That is one of the oldest antisemitic narratives in existence.

I don’t think most progressive politicians mean that, nor do I believe that’s what they’re trying to say. But after listening to that focus group, I became convinced that this is how some voters hear it.

So criticize military aid. Criticize Israeli policy and the government. Argue that American weapons shouldn’t be used to bomb civilians. That’s enough. Don’t tell people Israel is why they don’t have Medicare.

Don’t Call the Iran War “Israel’s War”

The same dynamic applies to the recent war with Iran.

There is no question that Benjamin Netanyahu wanted the United States to strike Iran and that he played a role in convincing Trump to do so. There is no question that Israeli and American interests are not perfectly aligned. Israeli leaders want the United States to go all the way and force regime change – but that’s not something the American public or even the Trump Administration will abide. It’s too expensive, too risky and certainly not in our interest.

But none of that changes one basic fact. Donald Trump made the decision to strike.

He is the Commander in Chief. He ordered American forces into combat. He put American troops at risk. His decision has triggered the dramatic rise in gas prices, depletion of U.S. ammunition, destabilization of the Middle East and the violence and suffering that many in the region have endured.

Netanyahu and former prime minister Ehud Olmert tried to convince previous presidents, including George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Joe Biden, to launch this kind of war. They declined. Trump chose differently. Yes, this is something Netanyahu wanted and encouraged, but the buck has to stop with the president.

Calling it “Israel’s war” subtly shifts responsibility away from the American president and toward Israel. And once again, for some audiences, that becomes a story about Israel manipulating America into fighting wars against its own interests and secretly acting as the puppet master, which plays into antisemitic tropes and quickly translates over to American Jews.

You can criticize Netanyahu’s lobbying, his strategy and his influence without suggesting that America was acting as Israel’s puppet. When you start talking that way, some of your audience will draw conclusions about secret Jewish power.

Push Back When Your Own Side Crosses the Line

Progressive leaders also have a responsibility when their allies and supporters cross into rhetoric that blames Jews collectively or justifies violence against Israelis.

Too often these moments are met with an awkward pivot instead of a clear rejection.

A recent example of doing this right is Ro Khanna’s interview with Jeremy Scahill, in which Scahill pressed him about Palestinian armed resistance and violence. Khanna rejected the argument and emphasized his commitment to nonviolence. It was a very good response.

But I also think it’s okay in those moments to be even more direct and unequivocally say that Scahill’s argument was not just wrong, but crossed a line. There is no justification for violence against innocent people – whether they are Israeli or Palestinian.

In another recent example, Melat Kiros, the Democratic nominee for Congress in Colorado’s first district, gave an interview to PBS over the weekend. She talked about the importance of engaging with Muslims, Jews and Christians in trying to find common ground on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict – and the challenge that progressives face when ideas they present are too easily swatted down by opponents as antisemitic.

Her remarks weren’t fully clear, and started with a statement that “My greatest concern right now is that the State of Israel is losing support across the political spectrum,” which naturally led to anger from many of her progressive supporters and caused her to walk back the interview.

But I do think the message was ultimately a good and thoughtful one and spoke some hard truths to her own supporters about not just sticking to an ideological line but reaching across and building alliances. This message, perhaps slightly refined, coming from candidates like Kiros and her peers, will go a long way to building greater bridges between the organized American Jewish community and progressives.

The Jewish Community Has Responsibilities Too

This responsibility cuts both ways. The organized Jewish community cannot treat every criticism of Israel as antisemitic.

I wasn’t particularly impressed with Zohran Mamdani’s video calling for Benjamin Netanyahu’s arrest. It struck me as political theater, as he knew that the Mayor of New York City doesn’t have the power to arrest Netanyahu. I would much rather see elected officials convene serious conversations among Jewish, Israeli, Palestinian and Arab New Yorkers than produce viral videos – something Mamdani does have the convening power to do. And something J Street certainly encourages him to do.

But I also think it was a mistake for many in the Jewish community to immediately connect that video to a horrific hate crime committed the following day against a Jewish American and an Asian American. That causal connection was, at best, highly speculative.

Labeling every disagreement as antisemitism is not just wrong – it leads to lost credibility. And when genuinely antisemitic rhetoric does emerge, people are less likely to listen.

This debate has become trapped in a cycle of mutual distrust. Progressives too often dismiss genuine concerns about antisemitism as attempts to silence criticism of Israel. Many supporters of Israel too often dismiss criticism of Israel as inherently antisemitic. Neither is true often enough to justify those assumptions. If we are going to build a pro-democracy alliance to defeat Donald Trump and his ilk, we are going to need to bridge this divide.

I want my progressive colleagues to take my concerns seriously when I say a particular argument comes dangerously close to reinforcing antisemitic ideas, even if that wasn’t the speaker’s intention.

But if I expect that respect, I must extend the same courtesy in return. I have to distinguish between criticism of Israel that I simply disagree with and rhetoric that genuinely crosses into antisemitism.

If we can listen more carefully, criticize more precisely and assume better faith from one another, we might discover that there is more room for honest disagreement than our politics currently allows.

And we’d all be better off for it.