Some people, Jews and others, believe that the Israeli strategy in Gaza is justified and that the deaths and suffering of innocent people are unfortunate collateral damage of an important goal. Some people, Jews and others, disagree.
One thing we all can agree on is that when people, especially children, suffer, justifiably or not, it is our duty to help relieve that suffering in any way we can. People of all religious traditions or none can agree on this.
The International Rescue Committee is one of the most respectable and responsible organizations in the world working on this:
The International Rescue Committee (IRC) helps people affected by humanitarian crises—including the climate crisis—to survive, recover and rebuild their lives.
Founded at the call of Albert Einstein in 1933, the IRC is now at work in over 50 crisis-affected countries as well as communities throughout Europe and the Americas.
As Jews, on Passover we recall how our storied ancestors suffered—under the hand of a wicked ruler, wandering in a desolate desert. As we have suffered and suffer still, how can we deny the suffering of others and fail to relieve it?
When the Israelites were starving in the desert, we are told that God provided manna:
In the desert the whole community grumbled against Moses and Aaron. The Israelites said to them, “If only we had died by the Lord’s hand in Egypt! There we sat around pots of meat and ate all the food we wanted, but you have brought us out into this desert to starve this entire assembly to death.” Then the Lord said to Moses, “I will rain down bread from heaven for you. The people are to go out each day and gather enough for that day. (Exodus 16:2-4)
You say this is what God wants God told you Or told someone who heard And told you Told someone Who wrote it down Figured out That this is what God wants. I am no more than Moses or others But no less. Here is what I read and heard And write. “Bereshit bara elohim et hashamayim v’et ha’aretz. V’ha’aretz hatah tohu v’bohu.”* In the beginning was tohu and bohu, a formless wasteland. All the rest is commentary For us not God to write create destroy. Write we did Create we did Destroy we did And do. This is what we want.
Rhetoric doesn’t end war and save lives. Whatever the rhetoric he and his administration announce, Biden continues to arm a nation pursuing a questionable war strategy that is killing thousands. Reported just yesterday:
US reportedly approves transfer to Israel of bombs and jets worth billions Sources say weapons package authorized even as Washington expresses public concern over anticipated offensive in Rafah Friday, March 29, 2024
The US in recent days authorized the transfer of billions of dollars worth of bombs and fighter jets to Israel, two sources familiar with the effort said on Friday, even as Washington publicly expresses concerns about an anticipated Israeli military offensive in Rafah.
The new arms packages include more than 1,800 MK-84 2,000lb bombs and 500 MK-82 500lb bombs, said the sources, who confirmed a report in the Washington Post.
Whether you lived through the Vietnam War or know it only as history, this is seeming oppressively and depressingly familiar, not just as an unnecessary tragedy, but as a political nightmare.
LBJ accomplished a lot of important things for America, but his stubborn support of the war in Vietnam doomed his reelection in 1968, leading him to drop out of the race, and leading to the horrors of the Nixon White House.
Biden has also accomplished a lot of important things for America. But he already goes into the 2024 election with widespread questions about his age. Now added to that is his stubborn support, despite his rhetoric, for a war that is already tragic and a situation that will not look better by the time of the election.
The analogy isn’t perfect. But as the saying goes, history may not repeat itself, but it rhymes. This is looking a lot like Biden’s Vietnam. And as terrible as the Nixon presidency was, the Trump regime would be more evil and dangerous. Is there still time for Biden to do more than talk, to stand up and use American military support as leverage? Even if he does, is it too late to make a difference in what is almost certainly a toss-up election, with Biden in the eyes of some voters—especially some Democratic voters—a villain?
“There is a certain people. They do not keep the king’s laws, so that it is not appropriate for the king to tolerate them. Let a decree be issued for their destruction.” Esther 3:8
There has been an abundant supply of information, analysis, belief and emotion surrounding the current Israeli war in Gaza. I have increasingly kept the analysis, belief and emotion to myself, or at least in a very small circle. In Yiddish terms, who needs the tzuris (trouble, aggravation)?
As for information, I have continued to seek trustworthy work from scholars and historians who have studied the issues. Some of this work is not always in the mainstream of discussion. Here are a few books I have found:
“Just and Unjust Wars has forever changed how we think about the ethics of conflict. In this modern classic, political philosopher Michael Walzer examines the moral issues that arise before, during, and after the wars we fight. Reaching from the Athenian attack on Melos, to the Mai Lai massacre, to the war in Afghanistan and beyond, Walzer mines historical and contemporary accounts and the testimony of participants, decision makers, and victims to explain when war is justified and what ethical limitations apply to those who wage it.”
“A revelatory look at why we dehumanize each other, with stunning examples from world history as well as today’s headlines.
“Brute.” “Cockroach.” “Lice.” “Vermin.” “Dog.” “Beast.” These and other monikers are constantly in use to refer to other humans—for political, religious, ethnic, or sexist reasons. Human beings have a tendency to regard members of their own kind as less than human. This tendency has made atrocities like the Holocaust, the genocide in Rwanda, and the slave trade possible, and yet we still find it in phenomena such as xenophobia, homophobia, military propaganda, and racism. Less Than Human draws on a rich mix of history, psychology, biology, anthropology and philosophy to document the pervasiveness of dehumanization, describe its forms, and explain why we so often resort to it.
David Livingstone Smith posits that this behavior is rooted in human nature, but gives us hope in also stating that biological traits are malleable, showing us that change is possible. Less Than Human is a chilling indictment of our nature, and is as timely as it is relevant.”
“A new history of the American Jewish relationship with Israel focused on its most urgent and sensitive issue: the question of Palestinian rights.
American Jews began debating Palestinian rights issues even before Israel’s founding in 1948. Geoffrey Levin recovers the voices of American Jews who, in the early decades of Israel’s existence, called for an honest reckoning with the moral and political plight of Palestinians. These now‑forgotten voices, which include an aid‑worker‑turned‑academic with Palestinian Sephardic roots, a former Yiddish journalist, anti‑Zionist Reform rabbis, and young left‑wing Zionist activists, felt drawn to support Palestinian rights by their understanding of Jewish history, identity, and ethics. They sometimes worked with mainstream American Jewish leaders who feared that ignoring Palestinian rights could foster antisemitism, leading them to press Israeli officials for reform. But Israeli diplomats viewed any American Jewish interest in Palestinian affairs with deep suspicion, provoking a series of quiet confrontations that ultimately kept Palestinian rights off the American Jewish agenda up to the present era.”
“Remember the blood of the innocent cries forever. Should that blood stop to cry, humanity would cease to be.” —Abraham Joshua Heschel
Abraham Joshua Heschel was a great Jewish thinker, writer and prophet of the twentieth century. I have included him in over 30 posts, far more than any other figure. Here is one example.
Heschel was one of the earliest religionists to oppose the Vietnam War. As a friend and colleague of Martin Luther King Jr. in the civil rights movement, he influenced King to publicly come out against the war.
Benjamin Sax talks about the price Heschel paid:
“When he came out against the Vietnam War for example, there were a lot of Jewish presses and a lot of Jewish leadership that spoke out against him. There was a lot of criticism about his leadership, about his point of view – he was considered naive. Worse he was considered theologically naive. That what he was doing was undermining the safety of his own people and undermining the safety of our country. And that aspiring to these universal, patriotic values was something that at least many in the Jewish community wanted to put out there even if they were uncomfortable with the reasons why we were in Vietnam. And so, it also put his reputation at risk.”
Heschel wrote about the war:
“The blood we shed in Vietnam makes a mockery of all our proclamations, dedications, celebrations. Has our conscience become a fossil, is all, mercy gone? If mercy, the mother of humility, is still alive as a demand, how can we say yes to our bringing agony to that tormented country? We are here because our own integrity as human beings is decaying in the agony and merciless killing done in our name. In a free society, some are guilty and all are responsible. We are here to call upon the governments of the United States as well as North Vietnam to stand still and to consider that no victory is worth the price of terror, which all parties commit in Vietnam, North and South. Remember the blood of the innocent cries forever. Should that blood stop to cry, humanity would cease to be.”
Heschel died in 1972. It would be beyond presumptuous—criminal and sinful—to claim to know what he would be saying about the current Israeli war in Gaza. All we can know is that he urged flawed human beings to rise above self to do better and be better, which is what he believed God needs us to do.
Hannah Arendt was a genius of twentieth century political philosophy. Her book The Origins of Totalitarianism (1951) is a seminal work. She was also one of the great Jewish thinkers of her time.
She faced obstacles. As a Jew, she once had a relationship with renowned philosopher Martin Heidegger, who was disgraced as a Nazi sympathizer and supporter. As a Jew and journalist, she covered the trial of Adolf Eichmann (Eichmann in Jerusalem), her analysis including the infamous term “banality of evil”. She suggested that Eichmann and others were not necessarily unique monsters, but were ordinary thoughtless people doing horrific things as a matter of course. This view did not sit well with many in the Jewish community. She also believed that Zionism, which she appreciated, had lost its way. Because of her perspectives on Eichmann and Zionism, she remains for some a pariah.
Hannah Arendt’s greatest contributions to Humanist Zionism are summoning a sophisticated historical context for the European Jewish experience, assessing the dangers of statist nationalism and imperialism, articulating a federalist alternative to nation-states, and diagnosing root pathologies in mainstream Zionism. She linked the onset of Zionism to the evolution in Europe of nationalism, the nation-state system, imperialism, modern antisemitism, and internal political and social dynamics in Europe’s Jewish communities. Although Arendt credited Zionists for giving Jews agency, she diagnosed the prevailing wing as suffering from two underlying maladies. First, it subscribed to a belief in an eternal antisemitism unaffected by broader historical developments or the choices made by Jewish communities. Consequently, mainstream Zionists regarded all outsiders as suspect and adopted a persecution complex. What followed was the second malady of a “tribal” nationalism, which rejects collaboration with the outside world as futile given unrelenting antisemitism.
Controversy surrounding Hannah Arendt is not going away.
A German foundation has said it will no longer be awarding a prize for political thinking to a leading Russian-American journalist after criticising as “unacceptable” a recent essay by the writer in which they made a comparison between Gaza and a Jewish ghetto in Nazi-occupied Europe.
Masha Gessen was due to be presented with the Hannah Arendt prize for political thought on Friday. But the award ceremony will now not take place as planned after the Green party-affiliated Heinrich Böll Foundation (HBS) said it was withdrawing its support. The HBS said it had reached its decision in agreement with the senate in Bremen, the northern port city where the ceremony was scheduled to take place….
The HBS said it objected to and rejected a comparison made by Gessen in a 9 December essay in the New Yorker between Gaza and the Jewish ghettos in Europe.
In the essay, Gessen, who uses they, criticised Germany’s unequivocal support of Israel, drawing attention to the Bundestag’s 2019 resolution condemning the Israel boycott movement BDS as antisemitic and quoting a Jewish critic of Germany’s politics of Holocaust remembrance as saying memory culture had “gone haywire”.
In the paragraph the HBS draws attention to, Gessen wrote that “ghetto” would be “the more appropriate term” to describe Gaza, but the word “would have drawn fire for comparing the predicament of besieged Gazans to that of ghettoized Jews. It also would have given us the language to describe what is happening in Gaza now. The ghetto is being liquidated.”
The foundation said Gessen was implying that Israel aimed to “liquidate Gaza like a Nazi ghetto”, adding that “this statement is unacceptable to us and we reject it”….
Supporters of Gessen, who is Jewish, and whose grandfather and great-grandfather were among family members murdered by the Nazis, have been quick to point out the irony of suspending a prize awarded in memory of Arendt, the German-born Jewish-American historian, philosopher and antitotalitarian political theorist who coined the phrase “the banality of evil”, in connection with the trial of leading Nazi Adolf Eichmann, which she covered as a journalist for the New Yorker.
Samantha Rose Hill, author of the profile Hannah Arendt and editor of Arendt’s collected poems, called it “an affront to Hannah Arendt’s memory. By their own logic, the Heinrich Böll Foundation needs to cancel the Hannah Arendt prize altogether.”
Another academic said that according to the reasons given for the decision, “Hannah Arendt wouldn’t get the Hannah Arendt award in Germany today.”
In an interview with Die Zeit published on Tuesday, Gessen spoke of the backlash Arendt had faced as one of Israel’s initial critics, warning against establishing a purely Jewish state in Palestine and in so doing excluding the Arab population.
In an open letter written with Albert Einstein and other Jewish intellectuals in 1948, Arendt had, Gessen pointed out, even compared the Israeli Freedom party to the Nazis after they used racially motivated violence against civilians.
“I am aware that this type of comparison, especially in Germany, is quickly seen as relativising the Holocaust. That’s why it’s so important to me that such a differentiated and intelligent thinker like Arendt didn’t shy away from this comparison,” Gessen told the newspaper.
Referring to people in Germany being wary of challenging “the logic of German memory policy” for fear of being accused of antisemitism, they added: “The problem is that criticism of Israel is often seen as antisemitic, which I think is the real antisemitic scandal. This overlooks the actual antisemitism.”
Young people generally supporting Democrats have a problem. The president is supporting a war that they vehemently oppose, and nothing they say is being heard. Republicans see an opportunity. They don’t need those young people and are happy for the opposition. If those young people stay home and those who support the war vote Republican, they will win.
In 1968.
The analogy is imperfect but still helpful. Young people oppose U.S. unconditional support for Israel’s Gaza strategy, not because they are antisemitic, but because then and now, they have a sense that something is very wrong and that an American president—not for the first time—is doing little or nothing about it.
Republicans are giddy. Let the Democrats try to have an earnest and open discussion about the values implicated in the war. It will devolve into political chaos. We Republicans won’t waver. When asked about the limits of Israel’s war, we can say there is no limit to Palestinian civilians killed (Senator Lindsey Graham) or asked about how many Palestinians should be killed, we can say “all of them” (Florida legislator Michelle Salzman).
The Democratic National Convention will be held in Chicago in August 2024. The Gaza war and its horrific aftermath will still be ongoing. Some, maybe many, young people will be moved to show up to protest. Instead of being labelled radicals and communists, they will be labelled antisemitic. Maybe they won’t show up at the convention, and instead just won’t vote in November, or will vote for a third-party presidential candidate.
Mark Twain said, “History doesn’t repeat itself, but it often rhymes”. That rhyme is loud and clear.
We are experiencing the most public and powerful discussion of antisemitism in generations. Claims that particular speech and actions are antisemitic are having substantial consequences—including the loss of opportunities, business and jobs.
What exactly is antisemitism? Yesterday the U.S. House of Representatives weighed in. And like everything else in the current environment, the result was divisive and controversial.
Fourteen House lawmakers voted against a GOP-led resolution Tuesday “denouncing the drastic rise of antisemitism” in the U.S. and around the world after the Oct. 7 Hamas attack on Israel, with many of the detractors accusing the legislation of conflating criticisms of the Israeli government with antisemitism.
The resolution stated that anti-Zionism is antisemitism.
The chamber cleared the resolution in a 311-14-92 vote, with 13 Democrats and one Republican voting “no.”
Ninety-two Democrats voted “present” after three prominent Jewish Democrats urged members of the conference to do so. They called the legislation “the latest unserious attempt by Republicans to weaponize Jewish pain and the serious problem of antisemitism to score cheap political points.”
The resolution, which spans four pages, “strongly condemns” all forms of antisemitism; reaffirms the House’s strong support for the Jewish community in the U.S. and around the globe; calls on elected officials and world leaders to condemn and fight all forms of antisemitism; rejects all forms of terror, hate, discrimination and harassment against individuals in the Jewish community; and “clearly and firmly states that anti-Zionism is antisemitism.”
Little reported is that Republicans sponsoring the resolution relied upon and included the definition provided by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA). In the absence of a consensus working definition, in 2016 IHRA drafted a definition, including examples:
“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”
To guide IHRA in its work, the following examples may serve as illustrations:
Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic. Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong.” It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.
Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:
Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).
Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.
Members of Jewish communities, including leading rabbis and scholars, found this definition too broad, particularly in absolutely equating criticism of Israel and Zionism with antisemitism.
The Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism is a tool to identify, confront and raise awareness about antisemitism as it manifests in countries around the world today. It includes a preamble, definition, and a set of 15 guidelines that provide detailed guidance for those seeking to recognize antisemitism in order to craft responses. It was developed by a group of scholars in the fields of Holocaust history, Jewish studies, and Middle East studies to meet what has become a growing challenge: providing clear guidance to identify and fight antisemitism while protecting free expression. Initially signed by 210 scholars, it has now around 350 signatories.
Preamble
We, the undersigned, present the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism, the product of an initiative that originated in Jerusalem. We include in our number international scholars working in Antisemitism Studies and related fields, including Jewish, Holocaust, Israel, Palestine, and Middle East Studies. The text of the Declaration has benefited from consultation with legal scholars and members of civil society.
Inspired by the 1948 Universal Declaration on Human Rights, the 1969 Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination, the 2000 Declaration of the Stockholm International Forum on the Holocaust, and the 2005 United Nations Resolution on Holocaust Remembrance, we hold that while antisemitism has certain distinctive features, the fight against it is inseparable from the overall fight against all forms of racial, ethnic, cultural, religious, and gender discrimination.
Conscious of the historical persecution of Jews throughout history and of the universal lessons of the Holocaust, and viewing with alarm the reassertion of antisemitism by groups that mobilize hatred and violence in politics, society, and on the internet, we seek to provide a usable, concise, and historically-informed core definition of antisemitism with a set of guidelines.
The Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism responds to “the IHRA Definition,” the document that was adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) in 2016. Because the IHRA Definition is unclear in key respects and widely open to different interpretations, it has caused confusion and generated controversy, hence weakening the fight against antisemitism. Noting that it calls itself “a working definition,” we have sought to improve on it by offering (a) a clearer core definition and (b) a coherent set of guidelines. We hope this will be helpful for monitoring and combating antisemitism, as well as for educational purposes. We propose our non-legally binding Declaration as an alternative to the IHRA Definition. Institutions that have already adopted the IHRA Definition can use our text as a tool for interpreting it.
The IHRA Definition includes 11 “examples” of antisemitism, 7 of which focus on the State of Israel. While this puts undue emphasis on one arena, there is a widely-felt need for clarity on the limits of legitimate political speech and action concerning Zionism, Israel, and Palestine. Our aim is twofold: (1) to strengthen the fight against antisemitism by clarifying what it is and how it is manifested, (2) to protect a space for an open debate about the vexed question of the future of Israel/Palestine. We do not all share the same political views and we are not seeking to promote a partisan political agenda. Determining that a controversial view or action is not antisemitic implies neither that we endorse it nor that we do not.
The guidelines that focus on Israel-Palestine (numbers 6 to 15) should be taken together. In general, when applying the guidelines each should be read in the light of the others and always with a view to context. Context can include the intention behind an utterance, or a pattern of speech over time, or even the identity of the speaker, especially when the subject is Israel or Zionism. So, for example, hostility to Israel could be an expression of an antisemitic animus, or it could be a reaction to a human rights violation, or it could be the emotion that a Palestinian person feels on account of their experience at the hands of the State. In short, judgement and sensitivity are needed in applying these guidelines to concrete situations.
Definition
Antisemitism is discrimination, prejudice, hostility or violence against Jews as Jews (or Jewish institutions as Jewish).
Guidelines
A. General
It is racist to essentialize (treat a character trait as inherent) or to make sweeping negative generalizations about a given population. What is true of racism in general is true of antisemitism in particular.
What is particular in classic antisemitism is the idea that Jews are linked to the forces of evil. This stands at the core of many anti-Jewish fantasies, such as the idea of a Jewish conspiracy in which “the Jews” possess hidden power that they use to promote their own collective agenda at the expense of other people. This linkage between Jews and evil continues in the present: in the fantasy that “the Jews” control governments with a “hidden hand,” that they own the banks, control the media, act as “a state within a state,” and are responsible for spreading disease (such as Covid-19). All these features can be instrumentalized by different (and even antagonistic) political causes.
Antisemitism can be manifested in words, visual images, and deeds. Examples of antisemitic words include utterances that all Jews are wealthy, inherently stingy, or unpatriotic. In antisemitic caricatures, Jews are often depicted as grotesque, with big noses and associated with wealth. Examples of antisemitic deeds are: assaulting someone because she or he is Jewish, attacking a synagogue, daubing swastikas on Jewish graves, or refusing to hire or promote people because they are Jewish.
Antisemitism can be direct or indirect, explicit or coded. For example, “The Rothschilds control the world” is a coded statement about the alleged power of “the Jews” over banks and international finance. Similarly, portraying Israel as the ultimate evil or grossly exaggerating its actual influence can be a coded way of racializing and stigmatizing Jews. In many cases, identifying coded speech is a matter of context and judgement, taking account of these guidelines.
Denying or minimizing the Holocaust by claiming that the deliberate Nazi genocide of the Jews did not take place, or that there were no extermination camps or gas chambers, or that the number of victims was a fraction of the actual total, is antisemitic.
B. Israel and Palestine: examples that, on the face of it, are antisemitic
Applying the symbols, images and negative stereotypes of classical antisemitism (see guidelines 2 and 3) to the State of Israel.
Holding Jews collectively responsible for Israel’s conduct or treating Jews, simply because they are Jewish, as agents of Israel.
Requiring people, because they are Jewish, publicly to condemn Israel or Zionism (for example, at a political meeting).
Assuming that non-Israeli Jews, simply because they are Jews, are necessarily more loyal to Israel than to their own countries.
Denying the right of Jews in the State of Israel to exist and flourish, collectively and individually, as Jews, in accordance with the principle of equality.
C. Israel and Palestine: examples that, on the face of it, are not antisemitic (whether or not one approves of the view or action)
Supporting the Palestinian demand for justice and the full grant of their political, national, civil and human rights, as encapsulated in international law.
Criticizing or opposing Zionism as a form of nationalism, or arguing for a variety of constitutional arrangements for Jews and Palestinians in the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean. It is not antisemitic to support arrangements that accord full equality to all inhabitants “between the river and the sea,” whether in two states, a binational state, unitary democratic state, federal state, or in whatever form.
Evidence-based criticism of Israel as a state. This includes its institutions and founding principles. It also includes its policies and practices, domestic and abroad, such as the conduct of Israel in the West Bank and Gaza, the role Israel plays in the region, or any other way in which, as a state, it influences events in the world. It is not antisemitic to point out systematic racial discrimination. In general, the same norms of debate that apply to other states and to other conflicts over national self-determination apply in the case of Israel and Palestine. Thus, even if contentious, it is not antisemitic, in and of itself, to compare Israel with other historical cases, including settler-colonialism or apartheid.
Boycott, divestment and sanctions are commonplace, non-violent forms of political protest against states. In the Israeli case they are not, in and of themselves, antisemitic.
Political speech does not have to be measured, proportional, tempered, or reasonable to be protected under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and other human rights instruments. Criticism that some may see as excessive or contentious, or as reflecting a “double standard,” is not, in and of itself, antisemitic. In general, the line between antisemitic and non-antisemitic speech is different from the line between unreasonable and reasonable speech.
I don’t celebrate Christmas, not theologically. But I have always enjoyed the season culturally, socially and emotionally. It is fun and uplifting. Setting aside whether or not a messiah was born, who wouldn’t like to believe we have an opportunity for a better life and a better world? A new possibility. Besides, this concept is a Jewish one, though today the Jewish views range from it hasn’t happened yet to we aren’t waiting for it and it doesn’t matter anyway.
Hanukkah coincides on the calendar but has nothing to do with Christmas. This hasn’t stopped it from in some ways becoming Jewish Christmas, whether as a gift-giving holiday or in balancing big Christmas trees with big menorahs. For more on this, see Hanukkah in America: A History (the Kindle edition is on sale for $3.99—a steal!). The topline of the Hanukkah story is also inspirational: a family of Jewish warriors reclaimed their territory from an occupying power and restored and sanctified the Temple. The oil lamp that should have burned for one day lasted for eight. A miracle.
The story of the oil lamp may be legend, but the history of the family is very real. They began the Hasmonean dynasty which ruled Judea for generations. The history of the dynasty is filled with infighting, intrigue and occasional despotism. (The story is not included in the Hebrew Bible. Instead, it is only found in some versions of Christian Bibles, as the Books of Maccabees.)
News of current war in that very region is with us every day—for some of us, every hour or minute. It is important to pay attention and learn. It is also heartbreaking, agonizing and exhausting.
Which brings me back to Christmas.
Most years I think Christmas music appears too early. Most years I don’t watch the Hallmark-style Christmas TV rom-coms until later in December (Hallmark-style because there are now about a dozen channels or streaming services showing these). Why is this year different from other years?
This year I have begun listening to Christmas music already. This year I have begun watching Christmas rom-coms already. I will be doing that for weeks, maybe into the New Year.
It doesn’t mean I won’t be watching the war too—every day, multiple times a day. Speaking only for myself, only as this one Jew, I need a break once in a while. If centuries of Christmas inspired different music, some fun, some silly, some sublime, I’m listening. If people want to find themselves in ridiculous situations at Christmas and end up falling in love, I’m watching.
If a baby was supposedly born who supposedly would enable a kinder and more peaceful world—a still distant but worthwhile dream—there is no reason not to hope.
Bob Schwartz 