It is time to take responsibility for our image rather than blame everybody else
Last Friday, when I read Ben-Dror Yemini’s article in Yedioth Ahronoth, “The Covenant of the Bullies,” I felt a sense of déjà vu. He has been peddling the same narrative for years, blaming the entire world for Israel’s inadequate international standing, without even trying to understand our contribution to this unfortunate reality.
Yemini consistently views every issue through the prism of Israel’s image and ignores the question of Israel’s essence and soul. Even when he rightly attacks the religious right and our political intransigence, the reason for him is that they make us look poor.
He blames Haaretz newspaper and most serious media outlets worldwide for exposing our wrongdoings, even though, as a media professional, he should know that the only way to bring about moral correction is by exposing reality, even when it is unpleasant for us.
In his Friday piece, Yemini primarily targets Zohran Mamdani, the new mayor of New York City, who has become a favorite target for Ben-Dror and his supporters. I do not support Mamdani’s anti-Zionist views, but most of the attacks against him are completely without factual basis.
Ben-Dror Yemini views Mamdani’s decision to revoke the municipal order that adopted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism as the definitive evidence of Mamdani’s antisemitism.
Mamdani’s decision to revoke all executive orders issued by his predecessor, Eric Adams, after the now-former mayor was indicted for corruption – including those that nullify the IHRA definition and the ban on municipal cooperation with BDS-supporting bodies – was not an antisemitic decision. It was a decision that favors New York City, which seeks to remove the cloud of corruption that hung over the previous mayor.
Mamdani not only overturned orders related to Israel but also a series of orders dealing with various local issues – the common thread being that they were all issued after the indictment against Adams was filed on September 26, 2024.
The IHRA definition of antisemitism is the subject of heated debate and controversy, including among global Jewry, and the body that adopted it has also stated that the definition was not intended to be used as law but rather as an educational/research tool for identifying the phenomenon of antisemitism. Under pressure from politicians on the Israeli and American right, this definition has been adopted as binding orders and laws in several US states and cities, helping those who weaponize antisemitism to harm freedom of expression.
Lawyer Kenneth Stern and the late Professor Yehuda Bauer, RIP, who were among the main drafters of the original IHRA definition, have clarified in interviews and testimony before Congress that the definition they drafted was intended to serve as a tool for measuring antisemitism, but that in practice it has become a political weapon used to silence dissent. “When you try to suppress opinions, it never ends well for the Jews,” Stern said in an interview.
The Biden Administration, which developed an impressive strategy to combat antisemitism in coordination with many Jewish organizations, also refrained from making the IHRA definition of antisemitism law. The previous administration presented other formulations that experts in the field prefer, such as the Nexus Task Force definition and the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism, as options for education.
Throughout the years, American Jews have been at the forefront of the fight for freedom of speech, and in this case as well, many Jews, including Stern himself, are leading the fight against giving legal validity to definitions that conflate anti-Zionism and antisemitism. Stern et al. are trying to prevent the weaponization of antisemitism that silences voices and, in turn, foments antisemitism
New Yorkers I spoke with, including dual Israeli nationals, don’t delude themselves into thinking that Mamdani is a Zionist, but like him, they too desire the important separation between anti-Zionism and antisemitism, between criticism of the State of Israel and hatred of Jews. To be sure, J Street opposes Mamdani’s anti-Zionist positioning, but not because it makes him an antisemite.
Yemini will likely continue to label any criticism of Israel antisemitic and ignore the fact that many staunch supporters of Israel have been highly critical of our governments’ conduct for many years, especially since the current government came to power and its handling of the Gaza war.
It’s better for us to learn to confront criticism and improve our policies instead of blaming others or weaponizing antisemitism—as Yemini tends to do in his writing.