Another Take on Anti-Zionism versus Antisemitism

The Mamdani election continues to yield a rich discussion of important issues, at least within the communities I’m involved with. One issue that concerns me from the perspective of a teacher of the history of antisemitism is the widespread characterization of Mamdani as antisemitic, at least within some conservative Jewish and Christian circles. 

There is no question in my mind that several years ago Mamdani made various statement which could be justifiably considered antisemitic. His positions changed, some might say matured, in this election and nothing he has said during the election season could be labeled antisemitic. There is no question that he has been a vociferous critic of Israel, and Benjamin Netanyahu in particular with regard to developments in the Gaza War. One social media contributor lamented a comment by Mamdani that he would try to arrest Netanyahu if he came to New York. The only problem, I think, with labeling that “antisemitic” is that the Attorney General of Israel has been trying to do the same thing in Israel for the entirety of the war.

All this is the backdrop to the issue I want to briefly explore today, and I think it is critically important. What is the definition of “antisemitism”? The issue and definition is more complicated than you might imagine if you haven’t been paying much attention to it. But use a tool like Google Scholar, or just put “antisemitism” in the Amazon book search box, and see the dozens of books, hundreds of scholarly articles, and heaven knows, tons of ridiculous contributions by folks who don’t know their you-know-what from a hole in the ground. 

There is at least one very fundamental problem with attempting a definition of antisemitism, and that is the inextricable winding of two strands for millennia. A Jew is a person who celebrates the religion of Judaism. But being a Jew has always carried a separate identity via the characteristic of ethnicity. Historically, some people have directed hostility at Jews because they observe a religion different from the majority population–Christian or Muslim. In other cases, the hostility has resulted from the Jew’s ethnic identity. Indeed, the original proposal of the term “antisemitism” in nineteenth century Germany was a declaration that hatred could be directed a Jew because of ethnicity rather than religion, which would then be termed, “Anti-Judaism.” 

Despite this blurring of the lines, it should be clear that all forms of antisemitism are forms of hatred directed at all Jews. And that is why neither Mamdani’s feelings, nor those of some prominent Democratic Party congressional representatives, can be legitimately called antisemitic. Because they do not hold any hostility towards the Jews of America, or any other country, city or state save one. Their antipathy is directed at what they see as the policies of the State of Israel to deny civil rights to the Muslim population over which Israel has gained control in various wars since 1967. That too is a very complicated subject which perhaps we can explore over time. 

Anger at Israel should be called exactly that–anti-Israel. Some critics of Israel go beyond that and also question the validity of notion that Jews should have a right to return to Israel. That is best termed anti-Zionism. 

I think I’ve already said enough about where my own feelings lie, but just in case, let me be clear that I am pro-Zionist, pro-Israel, and for that matter pro-America. Many of us have similar issues right now with our lives in America and our relationship to Israel. We have sharp disagreements with the tenor of the current American administration and do our best to voice those disagreements via peaceful protest. Likewise, we may be pro-Zionist and pro-Israel, but we might still have grave concerns about how this most recent war has been prosecuted, and we might hope for a different approach to the problems by the Israeli government. As the saying goes, “b’karov u’v’yameinu”–Soon, and while we still live.