Equality-Oriented Judaism: A Needed Brand

Zionism is rapidly turning into a toxic brand in large parts of the West—effectively equated with “Jewish supremacy” (much like “white supremacy”). While this is not entirely accurate—though not wholly unfounded in relation to some streams of Zionism—the perception is nonetheless taking root in the Western collective consciousness. And as Zionism is tarnished, so too are most Jews, since the majority identify as Zionists in one way or another.

As for Jewish Israelis, the picture is even starker: their identity is increasingly perceived—sweepingly and reductively—as synonymous with Jewish supremacy, or worse, as support for atrocities, starvation, and genocide against Palestinians. Again, this is not entirely accurate—though not entirely baseless—but the injustice is clear: many Israelis committed to equality and human rights find themselves collectively and negatively branded in the public eye of the West and beyond.

So what alternative concepts could enable a person committed to equality and human rights to identify as Jewish and/or Israeli without being tainted by this stigma? True, this is hardly the most urgent task at the moment. And yet, it is important to create such a distinction—not only to spare people an undeserved stigma, but also because of the broader social effect. When people are stigmatized solely for their identity, regardless of their views or actions, it often triggers a retreat into tribalism, nationalism, and defensiveness: “They hate us anyway just for being Jews.” In this way, collective stigmatization is not only a deeply unpleasant—and at times dangerous—experience for egalitarian Jews, but also a driver of radicalization and reactionary politics. By contrast, a clear distinction between advocates of Jewish supremacy and egalitarian Jews could create incentives to migrate from the first group to the second—from those who support supremacy to those who support equality.

So what terms can create this distinction today? A Jewish woman might identify as anti-Zionist. But since there are many interpretations and streams of Zionism that are not incompatible with full equality, the “anti-Zionist” label excludes many egalitarian Zionists and is therefore not suitable. Moreover, there are anti-Zionist Jews whose values are not exactly guided by equality: for example, ultra-Orthodox Jews who oppose Zionism may support inequality toward women and LGBTQ people. Their solidarity with Palestinians often derives less from a principled commitment to equality than from a theological objection to Jewish sovereignty in the biblical Land of Israel prior to messianic redemption. That is a theological stance—not a stance grounded in egalitarian principles.

What is missing, then, is a simple concept: Equality-Oriented Jew, Equality-Oriented Judaism (“Egalitarian Judaism” is a term already specifically associated with gender equality). A brand that is clear, sharp, and self-explanatory—requiring no elaborate clarification. Equally important, it should serve as an umbrella concept—one that a wide spectrum of Jews can identify with: ultra-Orthodox, religious, traditional, and secular; Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, and others; Israelis and Jews worldwide. In short, they can be called EOJews (Equality-Oriented Jews).

In the Book of Esther we find a warning against trying to distinguish oneself from the fate of fellow Jews: “Then Mordecai commanded to answer Esther, Think not with thyself that thou shalt escape in the king’s house, more than all the Jews.” (In simpler terms: Do not think that because you are in the king’s house, you alone, of all the Jews, will escape.)

Yet our context is different. Here, we are not dealing with a wholly baseless accusation against all Jews, but with atrocities—some of which are well documented and supported, or at least met with indifference, by a significant segment of Jews. In such circumstances, making a distinction is the moral course of action, while uncritical tribal solidarity risks becoming a form of complicity.

If one seeks a powerful tool for countering antisemitism, this is precisely it: cultivating a sharper distinction between “Judaism as a whole” and atrocities. After all, many of these atrocities are justified in explicitly Jewish terms (calls to annihilate Amalek, to eradicate the Canaanite nations, and similar rhetoric), and are in practice carried out by a state that claims to represent Jews or is identified with them. The brand of Equality-Oriented Judaism could thus serve as a central tool in the struggle against conflating Judaism with crimes against humanity—that is, in the struggle against the new antisemitism. If someone goes so far as to smear even Equality-oriented Jews, it exposes motives that are plainly antisemitic, merely disguised as opposition to Israeli policies. In fact, this provides a powerful way to distinguish antisemitism from legitimate criticism of Israel.

It is crucial that opinion leaders and key organizations recognize the need for such a differentiation, for such a concept—for a clear line that disentangles Judaism from atrocities and crimes against humanity.