Shameful Attempts to Blame Israel for Antisemitism

Many progressive and center-left Jews in America have purported to support Israel as a nation, while sharply criticizing the Netanyahu government. While there is nothing wrong, in principle, with being Zionist and critical of the Israeli government—it happens in Israel every day—this particular brand of center-left criticism by American Jews is sounding less like Zionism and more like Hamas propaganda.

The most recent case in point: Thomas Friedman. In his latest New York Times editorial, Friedman not only criticizes Netanyahu, but blames him for the surging antisemitism in the U.S. and around the world. People will hate Jews even more than they already do because Bibi is being too violent in Gaza, so goes his argument. If Netanyahu doesn’t negotiate a ceasefire, Jews better get used to synagogues being firebombed.

In his article, Friedman accepts and excuses the basic premise of antisemitism: Jews cannot defend themselves, but if they do, they are to blame for inviting the “backlash.” And unlike any other group, all Jews are responsible for the actions of a government. If Israel does something wrong, synagogues in New York are fair game. Many people disagree with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, but are they firebombing Russian owned business in New York? Sudanese? Rwandan? Syrian? Lebanese? Iranian? No. Only American Jews get attacked based on a foreign government’s policy. Friedman’s willingness to blame Bibi for global antisemitism—rather than blame the antisemites—is appalling. It is exactly what Hamas wants.

What Friedman also fails to understand is that antisemitism and the global intifada will not end after a ceasefire. After all, the antisemites were chanting and celebrating on October 7, 2023, blaming Israel for the violence before it even fired a single shot in response. The intifada will not be satisfied until Israel ceases to exist and all the Jews, from the River to the Sea, are killed or exiled. His sheer ignorance of antisemitism is most apparent when he suggests that Jews will eventually move from Israel to Australia, where crowds chant “Gas the Jews!” and whose government bans pro-Israel speakers from entering the country.

Even more oblivious is Friedman’s breezy assumption that Israel can simply negotiate a resolution, walk away with all the hostages, and ensure future security all at once. Whistling past the graveyard, Friedman ignores that Hamas—which instigated the war through its brutal act of terror, and which is morally responsible for every ensuing death—has rejected numerous ceasefire proposals and now demands thousands of convicted murderers and terrorists in return for the remaining, innocent hostages. The last time that Israel released thousands of prisoners for one hostage, it released Yahya Sinwar, who then masterminded October 7.

Even worse is Friedman’s slanted, incomplete, and misleading description of the war. The law of war recognizes that civilians will die, even in a just war, such as Israel’s just war against Hamas. But Friedman omits that Israel has taken unprecedented precautions to warn civilians and feed them, actions that no other country has ever taken in the history of war vis-à-vis its enemy. Israel sends text messages, “knock bombs,” fliers, and other warnings before attacking, ceding strategic advantages and putting Israeli soldiers at risk to save Palestinian civilians. The IDF also has lawyers who evaluate every airstrike and have authority to call off a strike, even at the last minute. In order to mischaracterize Israeli’s military policy as “utter indifference to the number of civilians being killed in Gaza,” Friedman shamefully hides those key facts from his reader.

Nor do we know how many civilians have died, because the numbers come from Hamas and have repeatedly been inflated. But even based on their own non-credible numbers, the civilian-militant kill ratio is still better than any army in the history of urban warfare—and that is in the face of an enemy who not only hides behind but wants to kill its own civilians for strategic ends. Also, many “civilians,” including doctors and journalists, participated in 10/7 and have held hostages or otherwise helped Hamas. Wearing jeans is not a “civilian” designation. By refusing to don military uniforms consistently, it is Hamas that is violating the laws of war and thereby increasing civilian deaths. Indeed, Hamas itself has directly killed many Palestinian civilians, by misfiring rockets or intentionally shooting into crowds. Yet Friedman does not blame Hamas for any civilian casualties on the Palestinian side, he blames Bibi.

Like many other critics, Friedman does not and cannot offer a reasonable alternative strategy. No one has, because Hamas is not a rational actor. It kills its own civilians to perpetuate its war against Israel, and it won’t give in unless Israel ensures Hamas’s survival in Gaza and returns thousands of prisoners, who will inevitably take up arms. So, until Friedman can devise a reasonable and realistic strategy to save hostages, preserve Israel’s security, protect Palestinian civilians, bring Hamas to justice, and end the war, he shouldn’t be so quick to cast stones at the leader with the hardest job in the world. And he certainly should not distort and omit the critical facts to boost his criticism of Netanyahu. In doing so, he perpetuates the blood libel of antisemites and Hamasniks around the world. This is not being “pro-Israel,” like he believes it is.

Co-authored with Mark Pinkert.

Mark is a litigation and appellate partner at a D.C.-based firm. His practice focuses on constitutional law, administrative law, and complex commercial disputes.