#MeToo’s Troubling Silence on Israeli Survivors

The #MeToo movement is under fire for its muted response to the Oct. 7 Hamas attacks on Israel, highlighting troubling selective advocacy.

The #MeToo movement, once a beacon of hope for survivors of sexual violence, now faces accusations of selective advocacy. Its muted response to the mass atrocities committed during Hamas’ Oct. 7th, 2023 attacks on Israel has brought global criticism. While the movement has supported victims in other instances, its lack of acknowledgment of Israeli victims underscores troubling ideological biases and risks undermining its credibility.

On Oct. 7th, Hamas launched a brutal assault on Israel, leaving over 1,200 dead. Survivors and investigators documented horrifying accounts of sexual violence targeting women. Videos circulated by Hamas terrorists confirmed acts of rape, mutilation, and abduction occurred. By their scale and intent, such crimes violated individual rights and attacked human dignity.

Despite its mission to confront gender-based violence, the #MeToo movement’s leadership remained silent for weeks after the attack. When a statement was finally released, it referred broadly to ‘civilian atrocities’, avoiding explicit references to the sexual violence or acknowledgment of the crimes’ anti-Jewish targeting. The vague language was an apparent attempt to avoid condemning Hamas’ role in the attacks and dilute the specificity of the suffering endured by Israeli women.

While the movement has been swift and decisive in condemning cases like Hollywood’s Harvey Weinstein scandal or Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court confirmation hearings, it has been noticeably absent in cases that intersect with controversial political or religious issues. A study of its public statements exposes a pattern of prioritizing narratives that only align with left-leaning ideologies, particularly those critical of Israeli policies.

An explanation for #MeToo’s silence may lie in the broader feminist and human rights communities’ frequent alignment with Palestinian causes. While critiques of Israeli governmental policies are legitimate, equating such issues with the need to address violence against Israeli women is a dangerous misstep. This approach effectively sidelines survivors based on their nationality or religion, violating the principle of impartial advocacy.

Dr. Einat Wilf, an Israeli academic and former Knesset member, explained this phenomenon as the “intersectional paradox,” where advocacy for human rights is applied selectively. “The refusal to unequivocally condemn Hamas’ actions,” she noted, “suggests that for some activists, the identity of the victim or perpetrator matters more than the act itself.”

The fallout of this selective advocacy is deeply personal for Jewish survivors of sexual violence. Many who once viewed #MeToo as a haven for survivors now feel alienated. Esther Cohen, an Israeli feminist activist, shared her disapproval: “When Israeli women needed solidarity the most, the movement that stood for ‘believing all survivors’ turned away.”

On university campuses, Jewish students have reported similar feelings of betrayal. Organizations that once encouraged their voices are now hesitant to engage when their narratives challenge popular political stances. This exclusion not only erodes trust in #MeToo but also weakens the broader feminist movement by dividing it along ideological lines.

The politicization of #MeToo’s advocacy undermines its stated mission to dismantle structures enabling sexual violence. By failing to stand unequivocally with Israeli survivors, the movement effectively normalizes selective outrage. Such an approach could discourage other marginalized communities from seeking #MeToo’s support, fearing their story might be ignored if it doesn’t align with the ‘correct’ narrative.

Moreover, selective advocacy forces the movement to be labeled as hypocritical. #MeToo has repeatedly called for perpetrators to be named and held accountable, yet it purposely avoided naming Hamas. This reluctance resembles patterns of denial and doubt that the movement initially sought to dismantle.

#MeToo must reaffirm its commitment to universal justice to restore its credibility. Advocacy groups like Jewish Women International have previously called on the movement to condemn all acts of sexual violence, regardless of the victim’s identity or the perpetrators’ political affiliations.

Legal scholar Irwin Cotler has also emphasized the importance of depoliticizing human rights work. “Sexual violence is not a political tool—it is a universal crime that demands a universal response,” Cotler said in a recent interview.

The #MeToo movement faces a defining moment. Its response to the Oct. 7 attacks has revealed deep issues in its approach to advocacy. While it has achieved remarkable success in amplifying survivors’ voices, its reluctance to condemn violence against Israeli women demonstrates the act of selective solidarity.

If #MeToo aspires to remain a credible force for justice, it must end its ideological biases and return to its founding principles of inclusivity and impartiality. Only by doing so can we build a world where all survivors feel seen, heard, and valued—without exception.