It seems quite counterintuitive, perhaps even antisemitic in its own right, to describe the Land of the Jews as antisemitic. It is, in its etymological sense, against the Jews. How could the Land of the Jews be categorized as being inherently against themselves? Well, let’s find out.

What does it mean to be antisemitic? I’m not actually a fan of language that describes oppressive attitudes in hateful terms. It has its uses, but more often than not, the traditions of oppression don’t fall under explicit acts of hatred, but as the enforcement of roles that bind groups of people to a particular label. For instance, it is not hatred of women when someone says they belong in the kitchen, as such an attitude allows for the love of women who fit that description. That’s why it’s racist to say that black people are naturally athletic, even though it’s technically a positive category. In Jewish terms for the sake of this article, it’s the, “make sure your accountant is a Jew” trope. It’s the grouping of a people under a particular heading that limits their individuality. No group is a monolith, and to expect them to be, or to react violently when they stray from their socially determined role, is the racism, the sexism, the antisemitism, and so on. One can certainly hate the stereotype and lash out accordingly, as one who believes Jews to be inherently manipulative might do, but the foundation of that hatred is still formed in the binding of a diverse people into simplistic classifications. If Group A is seen as inextricable from X, then that’s a problem.

October 7th was the deadliest day for Jews since the Holocaust. This is technically accurate, and has been the framing of the Hamas attack across much of the mainstream media. Let’s reframe this a little bit. Imagine 70 years from now; Russia has annexed most of Ukraine, and the rest is occupied in such a way that is considered illegal under international law. Ukrainians, fed up with their oppression, organize a massive and brutal attack against Russia and strike a small village, killing hundreds. It is technically accurate to describe this attack as against Russian Orthodox Christians as that is who most of the victims might be, but would we ever even consider discussing that violence in those terms? No, that would be silly. It is clearly in retaliation for the occupation of a people by an invasive state. Religion would have absolutely nothing to do with it. But Israel is different! Israel is the Land of the Jews, so any attack on it is inherently an attack on Judaism, right?

Not quite. Some Hamas officials are quite explicit in their linking of this violence to Judaism (though notably much of this rhetoric is dedicated to the elimination of “Israel” and not Jews more broadly), but let’s say for the sake of argument that the violence against Israel is inherently imbued with antisemitism – attack Jews to attack Israel and vice versa. Where did this come from? Why do Muslims hate Jews? Or more specifically, why do Palestinians hate Israeli Jews (a linguistic redundancy, surely)?

Well they don’t – remember no group is a monolith, so the diverse Palestinians are going to have diverse views and perspectives on Israel, but generally, the plight of the Palestinians has been well-documented, and it is certainly reasonable to argue that these conditions allowed toxic resentment and unhealthy violent urges to fester. But why is this particular insurgency tinged with antisemitism when the Russia-Ukraine example would be just absurd within that framing? Why do the Palestinians who do use that rhetoric incorporate antisemitism toward an oppressive state that really only coincidentally happens to be the Nation of the Jews?

Zionism is the Judaic tenet that the Jewish people are entitled to the ground underneath both Israel and Palestine. According to the original party platform of the ruling Likud party, “The right of the Jewish people to the land of Israel is eternal and indisputable … between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty.” Sound familiar? The idea is that Jews have a right to self-determination, and this must happen on only this particular land… even if other people happen to be living there already. To suggest otherwise is anti-Zionism – which is antisemitic, dontcha know. You can allegedly criticize the government of that dirt and grass, but you can’t extricate the Jewishness from it. Yet, however distinct the government may be from the purity of Zionist soil, the two remain intertwined: Israel has a law describing itself as a land wherein only Jews are allowed self-determination, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has opined that Israel is the nation-state of the Jewish people alone. The state has become so woven together with Judaism that it has been described as being an apartheid against those who are not Jewish. If the Land of Israel is Jewish, then the state of Israel must be Jewish to some degree too as the representation of that land. The distinction between the state and the religion is moot because in order for Israel to be Zionist, Jewishness needs to be a part of it. Attacking Israel is attacking Judaism for this very reason: Zionism decrees the self-determining Jewishness of that state.

Back in 2001, some folks who happened to be Muslim flew a couple of planes into the World Trade Center on American soil. While certainly not a universal reaction, many saw this as a clash of civilizations between Islam and Christianity. America is the Christian nation, and thus an attack on that nation is an attack on Christianity. Never mind the division of church and state codified in the Constitution, there are enough ethno-nationalists in the United States that an attack on that nation was seen as an attack on Christianity, sparking the infamous crusade against Muslims in the decades after. I do not intend to suggest that the War on Terror was an absolute symbol of Christianity against Islam, but instead suggest that an attack on a state with far less religious baggage than Israel still managed to become religiously representative in its reactions to violence. Ethno-nationalism will find ways even outside of established ethno-states to link nation with identity; as an ethno-state already, Israel cannot help but imbue the nation with Jewish identity.

This is why it seems paradoxical to conflate Israel with antisemitism, but this is exactly why Israel is antisemitic. If we accept that Group A being inextricably linked with X is the problem, then having Jews being inextricably linked with Israel must necessarily be antisemitic. A state is by definition a monolith, so any association between the two will always be a problem.

If an attack on Israel is an attack on Jews, then Israel’s response is a Jewish response. Those who wish to frame October 7th one of these way must accept its counterpart – hence the danger of the ubiquitous comparison to the Holocaust. This is why a common diasporic Jewish rallying cry for a ceasefire is “Not in our name;” a demand to distinguish themselves from the Jewish/Israeli monolith. And, while tragic, it also explains why pro-Palestinian groups would protest Jewish neighbourhoods. The Zionist idea of Israel will always be a part of the antisemitism surrounding it.

Am I advocating for the erasure of Israel as some are surely asking? Ethno-states are inherently corrupt, in that those outside of that identity will always be second-class citizens, and the embedded nature of that identity within the actions of the state will complicate international relations as we’re seeing today. A two-state solution will likely look like the partitioned India and Pakistan, each with their own ethno-state problems, locked in eternal conflict. In my opinion, a single secular state which encompasses the whole area with fair-minded access to holy sites governed by an independent body elected by all parties involved will probably offer the longest lasting peace in the region. No erasure necessary, and the river to the sea is finally unified! You could even keep the name! So I am only advocating for the erasure of Israel insofar as we define Israel as a state inherently intertwined with Jewishness. It does not appear that either of those things are reasonably likely in the short term anyway, so I’m not truly advocating for anything except a more fulsome understanding of the discourse on the matter.

Am I singling out Israel? This is another common rebuttal against criticism of Israel, and yes. I am. Of note, all ethno-states are bad. An American ethno-state would be bad, and I quiver with fear for the next and potentially final presidential election. The Islamic ethno-states in the Middle East are corrupt for many of the same reasons I’ve listed above. India is going down a dark road fueled by its own rising Hindu-nationalism. But those ethno-states, whether real or imagined, aren’t currently committing a genocide, so. This is not blaming Jews for antisemitism; it’s saying that a state that commits war crimes and simultaneously claims an inherent Judaic quality is an affront to Jews. A Christian ethno-state that forced brutal conversion therapy on trans kids in the name of their doctrine would be equally slanderous to individual Christians.

To criticize Israel ought to be seen as a sign of solidarity with the Jewish people as the state demands they are enmeshed together. Jews are not Israel! They are individuals with unique needs, perspectives, and values. Israel is not a representation of Judaism, and the Zionist claim that it must be is the true antisemitism. If Israel is Jewish, then it is antisemitic; if Israel is not Jewish, then it is not Zionist. What is the real threat? Jews can support Israel. Jews can support Palestine. They are not a monolith. Israel is perpetrating a genocide, and the claim that they are doing it for the sanctity and security of Judaism is a horrific expression of antisemitism unheard of to this day.