The international conference on combating antisemitism that took place in Jerusalem this week under the auspices of Diaspora Affairs Minister Amichai Chikli has come under criticism because some far-right European political figures and fundamentalist Christian leaders were invited.

Some authorities savaged Chikli for associating with the leaders of France’s Rassemblement National, Hungary’s Fidesz Party, and Spain’s Vox Party – even though the latter have mostly become partners in the fight against antisemitism and have forcefully stood up for Israel against Hamas and poisonous Palestinianism. (If US Sen. Bernie Sanders had repented and begun to defend Israel, would he not have been enthusiastically embraced by American Jewish and Israeli leaders?)

Lost in the controversy was the value of the conference that Chikli convened – a conference that finally began to tackle the toxic antisemitism of the intersectional and woke Left around the world.

Chikli’s conference initiated hard discussions on how to confront the progressivism that has fallen captive to antisemitism and how to curtail the radical Islam that fuels antisemitism in placid Western countries.

Experts offered prescriptions for pushing back against antisemitism in academia and public schools, in international institutions, and in corrupted international legal forums.

And yes, Chikli’s conference highlighted the role that religion can and must increasingly play – including evangelical Christians – in support of Israel.

The topics broached by Chikli had been taboo at international conferences on antisemitism over the past 30 years. (And as the former founding coordinator of the Israeli government’s Global Forum Against Antisemitism, chaired by Natan Sharansky, I am familiar with all of the conferences.)This is because confronting antisemitism on the Left runs up against politically correct liberal sensibilities.

The Left prefers to believe that the most dangerous antisemitism comes from the far Right. Indeed, it did for most of the 19th and 20th centuries, but the pendulum of antisemitic sourcing has since swung wildly and violently in the opposite direction.

So, kudos to Chikli for showing leadership in this regard. He dared to point a finger at the virulent antisemitism and anti-Zionism (which are much the same) of the far Left while also taking on the woke Right, which includes ugly antisemitic and anti-Israel segments of the MAGA movement.

Chikli also did the right thing (not just a right-wing thing) by honoring non-Jewish heroes of the past 18 months – people like Erin Molan of Australia, Richard Kemp of Britain, Luai Ahmed of Sweden (Yemeni born), John Spencer of the US, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali of the US (Somali-born Dutch-American) – all of whom attended the conference.

These people have bravely stood up and spoken out in the war against Palestinian denialism and the global demonization of Israel.

A SERIES OF disturbing trends in global antisemitism were analyzed at the conference, among them the following:

False equations: Even when condemning antisemitism, Western politicians and intellectuals feel the need to simultaneously condemn “Islamophobia and all forms of racism” in the same sentence. This is a politically correct refusal to recognize the uniqueness of antisemitism beyond all other forms of hatred, and it itself illustrates precisely that Jew-hatred. People cannot admit the uniqueness of antisemitism because they can’t stand the uniqueness of the Jewish people.

Mainstreaming of antisemitism: Even when Rashida Tlaib and some of her “Squad” colleagues in the US Congress regurgitate the “dual loyalty” charge against pro-Israel Senators – a classic antisemitic trope – national Democratic leadership has found it hard to condemn them outright or explicitly without wrapping rejection of the slur in the bland blanket of rejecting “all racist” language.

This is because, again, the American Left has stumbled into the bottomless rage of identity politics. It has embraced the new racial-gender taxonomy, which recasts thousands of years of Jewish history into a “wokified diorama,” as Peter Savodnik has written.

As a result, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is seen only through this false, flattening prism, with Israel playing the role of the white, colonial settler and the Palestinian that of the settler’s dark-skinned, indigenous victim.

And by transforming the Jewish state into a force for evil, the “progressives” separate the Jew from America and legitimize violence against the Jew for defending the indefensible: Israel’s alleged apartheid, colonialism, white supremacy, ethnic cleansing, and genocide.

Academic abdication

The most virulently antisemitic and destructive groups today, like Students for Justice in Palestine, have had free rein on American campuses to terrorize students and faculty, not just Jewish students and faculty. They force everybody to distance themselves from the “sins” of “white privilege” not only by declaring themselves to be allies of “minoritized” non-white populations but also by condemning other, less “woke” people, especially Jews and Zionists.

Unfortunately, some Jewish leaders and teachers cannot withstand the malice, malevolence, and cruelty of campus terrorists and, consequently, are afraid to back US President Donald Trump’s recent bold moves to defund, arrest, and deport the evildoers. Being so uncritically and superciliously upholding of “free speech,” they cannot see the radical campus rioters coming to hang every one of them.

Israel’s role in the struggle against antisemitism

As raw antisemitism around the world has risen and morphed into virulent anti-Israel sentiment – making the two phenomena almost indistinguishable – the State of Israel has moved from indifference to active involvement in the struggle against such hate. Yet not all Diaspora Jewish leaders are comfortable with Israeli leadership in this regard.

Remember, Israel has not always seen the struggle against global antisemitism as its fight. For the first 25 years of Israel’s existence, the unspoken attitude in Jerusalem was that if Jews abroad had a problem with antisemites, they could always immigrate to Israel. Immersed in the business of building and defending the Jewish state, Israel’s leaders had no time for the “troubles of the Diaspora.”

Israeli attitudes began to change after the Yom Kippur War; after the infamous 1975 “Zionism is Racism” resolution at the UN; after the 1980 Rue Copernic synagogue bombing in Paris and other terror attacks; following the 1993 wave of neo-Nazi violence that swept Germany; and especially after the notorious 2001 World Conference against Racism (under UN auspices) known as Durban I – which was a watershed moment.

Sharansky, then-minister for Jerusalem and Diaspora Affairs, introduced a benchmark for distinguishing legitimate criticism of Israel from antisemitism – by scrutinizing criticism of Israel for demonization, double standards, and delegitimization.

This became known as the “3D test” for antisemitic expression and intent, and it later was codified by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance into a working definition of antisemitism.

More than 40 countries around the world have endorsed the IHRA definition, but many “human rights” NGOs (such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the World Council of Churches) and left-wing Israeli academics explicitly reject the IHRA framework, claiming that it has a “chilling effect” on free speech in criticizing Israel.

And so, the battle for adoption of the IHRA definition continues – led by Israel (including Gideon Saar’s Foreign Ministry).

This is critical to stemming the surge in global antisemitism and to blocking the transformation of Israel into a “criminal” state that is a key target of the so-called “woke” world.

Consensus

There was a remarkable consensus about one matter at Chikli’s conference this week. There is only one explanation for the explosion of antisemitism around the world on October 7, 2023 – the day Hamas raped, tortured, murdered, and kidnapped Israelis in the Gaza envelope: Jews everywhere are grudgingly respected and relatively safe when Israel is strong but despised and vulnerable when Israel is weak.

The corollary lesson here is that the safety and security of Jews around the world depends on Israel winning – on regaining its strength, self-confidence, and deterrent power. This, in turn, will re-empower Diaspora Jews to defend Israel and themselves.

Published in The Jerusalem Post, March 28, 2025.

In a few days time, on  January 27, we will mark International Holocaust Remembrance Day and 80 years since the liberation of Auschwitz.

However, the Holocaust did not begin with the crematoriums of this singular place of evil. That is where the road of life for Jews ended. Rather, it began with words, unbridled hate, and the singling out and dehumanization of an entire group of people.

Eighty years after we collectively said ‘Never Again,’ here we are – yet again – with antisemitism and Jew-hatred surging unabated in Canada and Australia, and cannot help but ask, what lessons – if any – have been learned from history?

Both countries, once seen as beacons of tolerance and oases of peace for Jews, have become unrecognizable today, with almost daily reports of Jewish schools targeted with gunfire, Synagogues firebombed, and Jewish-owned businesses vandalized, while our students are hounded on campuses, widespread violent attacks in the streets, and Jews being increasingly ostracized and excluded from public spaces.

To say the statistics are alarming would be an understatement. It has been nothing short of anunrestrained tsunami of Jew hatred.

In Canada, antisemitic incidents have surged by 670% in the past year, while in Australia, likewise, there has been a 700% increase since the Hamas-led October 7 massacre, with the Jewish community in both countries feeling relentlessly under siege. Even more troubling is that many of these incidents go unreported.

Leading Jewish communal organizations, including ours, have been unwavering, fighting back, advocating to all levels of government to face this scourge. Regrettably, the governments have failed to heed these repeated warnings.

Today, pro-forma condemnations of antisemitism, promises of action, and reiteration that this new strain of the world’s older hatred does not represent the values of both countries, whilst welcome is entirely meaningless in the absence of urgent and tangible action.

What should be done

A much more aggressive legal approach also needs to be added. 

In Canada, lawsuits targeted Toronto Metropolitan University and unions, while court injunctions were sought and obtained to protect synagogues, Jewish schools, and Jewish community centers. In Australia, legal proceedings have also been initiated against the University ofSydney, under racial vilification laws, paving the way for the first broad class action lawsuit tackling post-October 7 campus antisemitism, with new laws also introduced against doxing, the display of neo-Nazi material and ensuring that glorifying and praising acts of terrorism are criminal offenses under Commonwealth law.

However, laws and task forces are only as good if they are backed by political willpower andenforced by the police and judicial authorities.

The police and security agencies cannot continue to allow the perpetrators of antisemitic attacks or those expressing support for proscribed terror groups to continue evading justice. Doing so will only encourage more attacks, as the perpetrators know they can act withimpunity.

Legislation should also be considered mandating graver levels of punishment, including mandatory prison sentences for some of the most violent forms of antisemitic attacks and hate crimes, such as fire-bombings of Synagogues or Jewish schools.

There must also be a recognition that chanting phrases like “Globalize the Intifada” or “Free Palestine” are not calls for peace, and do not depend on ‘intent’ or ‘context’, but are a clear and unmistakable incitement to violence, directly targeting Jews. This should be codified into law.

Moreover, we should consider whether non-citizens who commit acts of antisemitism and terror should be deported. There can be zero tolerance or place for such hatred in our democratic societies.

Political leaders must also understand that when they effectively throw Israel under the bus in the international legal arena, such as the United Nations and the international courts in The Hague, for their own domestic expedience, this leads to a more pervasive discourse on Israel and a direct correlation in the surge of antisemitism, as does repeatedly singling out the Stateof Israel for opprobrium, lecturing and differential treatment at home. This only emboldens perpetrators of antisemitism with a warped sense of justification to carry out their attacks against Jews and Jewish institutions.

The sad truth is that once great democracies, Australia and Canada, have failed to protect their Jewish communities.

Unremitting campaign of terror

Today, whereas the world’s only Jewish state has been forced to defend itself from Hamas and existential wars being waged by Iran and their terror proxies, another unremitting campaign of terror has been unleashed upon the Jewish communities of Canada and Australia.

Many Jews are increasingly asking if they are still welcome in the countries they have called home for generations, or if they have been abandoned by the political leadership and society at large.

Britain’s former Chief Rabbi, Lord Jonathan Sacks, once noted that a society that has no space for Jews has no space for humanity. As we look ahead to 2025, and on the eve of the 80th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz death camp, both Australia and Canada must therefore ask if they still have space for Jews and what kind of societies they wish to have.

Arsen Ostrovsky wrote the article  together with Richard Marceau is vice-president and general counsel at the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA). A former Member of Parliament, trained in both civil law and common law traditions, he is the author of A Quebec Jew and the co-editor of the Canadian Haggadah Canadienne. 

Published in The Jerusalem Post, January 24, 2025.

**The opinions expressed in Misgav publications are the authors’ alone.**

Last week I wrote about the antisemitic and anti-Israel lurch of Australia. The situation in Canada is no better. In fact, the parallels to Australia are chilling, with the two governments coordinating their progressive distancing from Jews and Israel.

In recent testimony before the Canadian Senate Committee for Human Rights and Justice, Shimon Koffler Fogel described the alarming rise in antisemitism in Canada in excruciating detail.

According to Fogel – who this month concluded 36 stalwart years at the helm of the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA), the main Canadian Jewish community advocacy agency – there has been a 93 per cent rise in hate crimes in Toronto since October 7, the majority of which have been directed at the Jewish community. In Vancouver, reports of antisemitism increased 62 percent in 2023 over 2022; 70 per cent of those occurred after October 7. In Montreal, antisemitic incidents are up by 250 percent.

Two young Canadians recently were charged with terrorism offenses for planning to bomb a Jewish event on Parliament Hill in Ottawa. Jewish-owned businesses have been defaced, damaged, boycotted, and vandalized. Jewish schools in Montreal and Toronto have been shot at and hit with bomb threats. Synagogues across the country have been picketed and vandalized. This week, Congregation Beth Tikvah in Montreal was firebombed for a second time (a synagogue where I was scholar-in-residence a few years ago).

Demonstrations glorifying terrorism and violence are taking place in Jewish neighborhoods for the sole purpose of intimidating residents.

In Montreal police have instructed Jews to silently skunk out the back doors of community centers so that antisemitic rioters won’t have to be confronted (– just like the Sydney police did).

The situation on campus for Jewish students is especially disturbing. Hate symbols deface Canadian universities; kippa-wearing students have been attacked; and there have been discriminatory remarks in lectures claiming Jews harvest the organs or blood of non-Jews. Students and faculty say that they avoid reporting incidents due to fear of retribution from both their professors and peers.

“Where there was once nuance and obfuscation, there is now brazen, explicit promotion of terrorism and jihadist violence,” The National Post (Canada) noted. “Terror groups are being named and praised. Violence against Canadian Jews is being encouraged. Demonstrators are showing up to rallies in full militant garb: military fatigues, face coverings and even body armour. What’s more, all of this is occurring with direct police supervision and even assistance.”

In writing about “The Explosion of Jew-Hate in Trudeau’s Canada” (The Free Press, Dec. 11, a 7,000-word investigation), journalist Terry Glavin sums up the situation as follows: “Despair has become a feature of everyday life for Jews across Canada who are experiencing open hatred – and yet are living under a government that appears either blind to it, paralyzed by it, or indifferent to it.”

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau repeats with platitudinous regularity that antisemitism has no place in Canada. But his law enforcement authorities have stood by as immigrants and others harass Jewish Canadians with only the weakest, limpest police response. The police and government ministers appear afraid of anti-Israel and antisemitic rioters. They are not afraid of the Jews.

Last week, a parliamentary committee on justice and human rights released a bold report, Heightened Antisemitism in Canada and How to Confront It, with concrete recommendations that align with Jewish community advocacy efforts.

These include prioritizing the safety and well-being of Jewish students, faculty, and staff on campus; adopting the IHRA definition of antisemitism across educational institutions and government bodies; strengthening hate crime legislation and law enforcement; and the protection of Zionist expression in Canada, reiterating that it is unacceptable to target or deny rights to individuals because of their Zionist beliefs. 

Following up on this, CIJA has demanded that Ottawa convene a national forum on combating hate crimes, terrorism, and antisemitism; enhance judicial and law enforcement training; bolster community safety programs; and most importantly, fight radicalization and extremism. Trudeau’s government (which is tottering) has yet to act on this agenda.

WORSE STILL, Trudeau and his foreign minister Melanie Joly dramatically have shifted Canada’s stance away from Israel.

In my mind, it is undeniable that that the diplomatic pitch away from Israel has fueled and given legitimacy to the ugly street protests. As my friend Father Raymond de Souza of Ontario has written: “Canada’s response to the Hamas massacre has been feckless in government and frightening on the streets.”

The desertion of Israel includes Canadian voting in favor of one-sided resolutions relating to Gaza and the West Bank that condemn only Israel without even mentioning Hamas or Israeli hostages. This is a flagrant violation of the long-standing Canadian policy principle of standing against the relentless anti-Israeli bias and corruptness of the UN in connection with the Mideast.

Trudeau’s excuse: The need to reemphasize Canada’s belief in the “two state solution,” on which Canada has doubled down to loudly defy Netanyahu governments.

Worse yet still, Trudeau is threatening to unilaterally recognize Palestinian statehood at “a time of Canada’s choosing,” irrespective of Palestinian behavior and “not held back” by Israeli defense realities and diplomatic concerns.

This is classic Trudeau chutzpah. He wants to reward the October 7 assault, and ongoing Palestinian support for this assault and for future aggressions against Israel, by unilateral recognition of Palestinian statehood? That is morally indefensible.

Recognition of a Palestinian “state” that does not really exist and which cannot be founded without pursuit of real peace with Israel through direct negotiations – distances real peace. It would reinforce rejectionism and extremism among Palestinian leadership.

Such a move would amount to a naked diplomatic attack on Israel, at a time when Israelis are still fighting for their lives against radical forces in the region. And it would indeed give tailwind to the increasingly violent and progressively more openly antisemitic street riots in Canada.

Note that this past year, Trudeau and Joly made Canada the first Western country to impose arms export restrictions against Israel. Joly even denied military export licenses to Canadian companies that were sub-contracting for American defense companies with munitions and weapons system contracts relating to Israel.

Joly’s Global Affairs Canada ministry has been one of the first to sanction not only “malign” settlers but a broad range of right-wing Israeli civil society organizations such as Regavim and Tzav 9 – just because they have different views on land and humanitarian matters than Joly’s ministry. In so doing, Canada has served as somewhat of a stalking horse for the nastiest aspects of the Biden Administration.

Trudeau also is the only leader of a G-7 country who has not bothered to make a solidarity visit to Israel since the October 7 Hamas assault.

Joly visited Israel once and shed the required tear or two when visiting the Gaza border communities and meeting with hostage families. She then went to Ramallah to hug and kiss the October 7 massacre apologist Mahmoud Abbas (yes, literally hug, kiss, and grin from ear to ear), and returned to Canada to immediately announce the arms export ban against Israel.

And let us not forget UNRWA, to which Canada swears fealty with messianic zeal, adding financial support for that deleterious organization despite unmistakable evidence of its collusion with Hamas and its support for never-ending Palestinian national conflict with Israel including the annihilationist-toward-Israel so-called “right of return.”

I write all this in anger directed at Trudeau but also with significant sadness, because it upends seven decades of magnificent Canadian support for Israel across Liberal and Conservative political lines. Who can forget the pro-Israel leadership of Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin or the ardent global defense of Israel from Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper?

“Through fire and water, Canada will stand by Israel!” Harper thundered in his famous 2014 Knesset speech, drawing 15 standing ovations. Those were the days.

Published in The Jerusalem Post 20.12.2024.

**The opinions expressed in Misgav publications are the authors’ alone.**

“Please remove all signs of Jewish or Zionist identity like kipahs and jewelry including Magen David necklaces and hostage solidarity pins, turn your bags inside out so that no Israel-related logos are visible, and exit the synagogue through the back door in groups of ten people at controlled intervals.”

These were the instructions issued by the Sydney Police to 200 Australian Jews at the end of a grand gathering ten days ago in the Sydney Great Synagogue, celebrating the centenary of The Technion: Israel Institute of Technology.

On the street outside, 100 loud and angry people had gathered to protest “genocide” in Gaza, the Technion’s role in supporting Israel’s military industries, and Technion ties to Australian academic institutions. And they came to demonstrate against me too, the Technion event keynote speaker, whom they labelled a “war-hawk.”

The police were fearful. Afraid of the protesters. They detained one Jew who tried to fly an Israeli flag across the street from the anti-Israel radicals. They arrested none of the radicals, nor made any attempt to move them away from the synagogue front and back exits, even though they had no protest permit. And then they asked the Jews to meekly skunk out of the shul while hiding their identity.

“Turn your Technion tote bags inside out!” they ordered.

This groveling, gutless, and perverted Sydney Police approach to Jews and their attackers jibes with the Australian government’s approach to Israel and Palestinians. It has savaged Israel at the UN and other international forums while assigning little responsibility to Hamas or Fatah.

It is clear to me that the cascading slide away from Israel by the Labor Party government of Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Foreign Minister Penny Wong has provided tailwind to the increasingly violent and progressively more openly antisemitic street riots.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is right when he says that Australia’s government has motivated antisemitic crimes with anti-Israel policies. The two cannot be separated.

Every single Australian Jew I met over my ten-day visit Down Under feels this in their bones. Israel and Australian Jews have been abandoned by the Australian government to radical hordes. Skunked, shut out, and shunted aside.

Australia even has moved to delegitimize and disqualify Israeli politicians. Two weeks ago, former justice minister Ayelet Shaked was barred from entering Australia where she was slated to address a conference organized by the Australia/Israel and Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC).

Why was she denied a visa? Because she might “incite discord in the Australian community” by objecting to the “two-state solution,” the Albanese government said. How outrageous. How revealing of Albanese government obnoxiousness.

(I spoke at AIJAC in Melbourne last week and focused on Iran. That, and the fact that I am not as prominent as Shaked, kept me out of trouble with Australian authorities, I guess.)

And sure enough, just days after Australia dissed Shaked, it again condemned Israel at the UN (supporting a demand to “evacuate all settlers from the Occupied Palestinian Territory”), and 36 hours after the insidious Sydney incident – a Melbourne shul was firebombed and gutted, just down the street from the home of my hosts.

The Australian government took its time admitting that this was terrorism, at first suggesting that leftover paint ignited the fire even though video footage captured three masked arsonists in action.

Eventually, Canberra mealy mouthed condemnation of the attack while doubling down on its criticism of Israel. It did not dare expressly suggest that the Satmar-style, non-Zionist Hassidic Jews who frequented that synagogue complex were fair game for bigotry because of the State of Israel’s “crimes” (this would have been quite ironic), but some Australian Labor Party figures came close to hinting at that.

Confronted by a storm of criticism, Albanese showed-up in a shul on Shabbat morning in far-away Perth, almost without warning. There, he was reportedly surprised to hear the rabbi intone the usual blessing for the Commonwealth Crown and the leaders of Australia. He didn’t seem to know that Australian Jews are patriots. Maybe he didn’t realize that they are equal citizens, deserving of protection and even respect.

The situation is so bad – a rise of more than 300% in antisemitic incidents over the past year – that the Simon Wiesenthal Center has issued a travel advisory for Jews or Israelis considering travel to Australia.

“In failing to act against the demonization of Jews, Israel and Zionism on the streets of Australian cities, the Australian government has allowed violence against Jews and Israelis to be normalized. Moreover, authorities have failed to take necessary measures to protect Jewish communities from increasingly belligerent and violent targeting by Islamists and other extremists.”

Under pressure, the Albanese government belatedly this week announced additional security funding for Jewish institutions, which the Australian Jewish Association dismissed as an attempt to buy off the Jewish community without truly addressing the causes of antisemitism. 

Albanese also hurriedly declared formation of a “Special Operation Avalite for Antisemitism” task force. One hopes that this is intended to counter antisemitism rather than spawn or excuse antisemitism, although with the Albanese government that is not at all certain.

But all is not lost. There are energetic non-Jewish supporters of Israel in Australia, including political party leaders who are likely to replace the current crop of fair-weather friends next year. There also are ethnic community figures and healthy-minded thinkers and writers who have rallied to the side of Israel and the local Jewish communities.

I was privileged to meet one of these heroes, the Australian Aboriginal activist Nova Peris. A double-gold Australian Olympic champion and former Member of Parliament who is lionized and recognized by everyone in the country, she has become one of Israel’s most outspoken defenders.

Speaking at the same pro-Israel events I did, Nova electrified listeners with her discourse on proud Aboriginal identity and indigenous claims to ancestral lands, making an explicit comparison between the struggle of her First Nations communities and the struggle of the Jewish People for respect and for reclamation of its ancient homeland, Israel.

Peris was horrified by the infamous protest just two days after October 7 outside the Sydney Opera House, where a mob chanted “F— the Jews” and burned an Israeli flag. No one was arrested at the protest and no one has been charged yet, but guess what? A Jewish man with an Israeli flag at the scene was arrested “for his own safety,” according to police.

Listen to Nova Peris: “As an Aboriginal woman from Kakadu, I know what it means to fight for land and identity. I see you, Jewish people, standing resilient in the land of your ancestors – a land where your history is woven into every stone, from the remnants of Solomon’s Temple to the echoes of Masada,” she said.

“I believe you when you say Israel is your birthright, you are not colonizers, but you are a people who have endured exile, diaspora, and withstood every effort against you of those who have tried to erase your identity. You have reclaimed your heritage, revived your language, and continued to live with unwavering pride.”

“I see you, descendants of David, who faced Goliath with courage and determination. Just like David, you faced insurmountable challenges and prevailed. Your history reminds us that strength comes not just from right but from purpose, faith, and resilience.”

“I see you, Jewish people, embodying the values of Tikkun Olam – the call to repair the world. Through your technological innovations, medical breakthroughs, and humanitarian efforts, you have shown an unwavering commitment to making the world a better place. I see you. I believe you.”

Nova will receive an award from the president of the Technion at its board of governor’s meetings here in Israel next June – deservedly so.

It is heartening to know that in these darks days when the Mideast is melting down, when support for Israel in some circles is melting away, and when Diaspora Jews are told to melt into ghettos and be invisible – there are good people who bravely and unapologetically stand with us.

And Australian Jews also should take heart from the knowledge that, despite all detractors, Israel is resilient and intends to win its wars decisively. Jews Down Under must be resilient too and resist all attempts to nullify them.

Published in The Jerusalem Post 13.12.2024 and Israel Hayom 16.12.2024.

**The opinions expressed in Misgav publications are the authors’ alone.**

While hiding in an attic during the Holocaust, Anne Frank wrote, “All we can do is wait, as calmly as possible, for it to end… the whole world is waiting, and many are waiting for death.”

We must take the diametrically opposite approach to the explosion of antisemitism worldwide following Hamas’s October 7 massacre, including the pogrom that took place this month in Frank’s hometown of Amsterdam. We must act in every possible way to defend the Jewish people, in Israel and across the globe.

Following the Holocaust, an oath was made: Never Again. Yet, today we are witnessing the infiltration of antisemitism and the horrifying violence it breeds. The modern-day pogrom that we saw on November 7 in Amsterdam is the manifestation of the growing confidence the Jew-haters have in their numbers.

The misinformation campaigns riddled with lies, extremism, and century-old prejudices have permeated every society in which Jewish people exist today – and some in which there are no Jews.

With the mounting number of threats, intimidation, and violence against Jewish people and their communities, physical assaults have almost become normalized in our daily news.

The November pogrom must be more than a moment of disbelief; it must raise a sense of urgency. We cannot let “Never Again” be a meaningless slogan; it has to be a call for action.

So what can we do?

The answer is simple but profound: Commit to protecting Jews. Commit to the Jewish state.

We have been facing antisemitism for as long as we have been a people and a religion. From the ashes of the Holocaust, a new generation found strength in the Jewish state. On the night of November 7, the Dutch authorities did not exert themselves to protect Jews who were under attack. Their fate was in the hands of Israel; it was Israel that took action and employed an emergency rescue mission to save our people from this pogrom.

While the State of Israel cannot eradicate the world’s oldest hatred, it must take effective action to mitigate it. Israel and its representatives must be careful to respect all local laws and legal requirements outside of its borders, but it nevertheless has a duty to provide support to Jewish communities confronting antisemitism.

Israel’s support in the legal arena

ONE IMPORTANT realm in which Israel can provide support is in the legal arena. Within the limits of local laws and regulations, Israel should help provide information and support to legal challenges against boycotts, discrimination, and antisemitism. The government of Israel should also facilitate training programs for lawyers in the Diaspora, equipping them with the skills needed to counter illegal discrimination and lawfare against Jews and Israel.

Israel must also strengthen and build upon its ties to Diaspora communities by focusing on unity and helping bolster Jewish identity. Strengthening Israel-Diaspora relations is an end in itself but it will also help Diaspora Jewry facing antisemitism. Such efforts could be carried out through online learning environments, Zionist youth movements, Jewish summer camps, and empowering local Israeli consulates to work more extensively and effectively with local communities.

Indeed, in the aftermath of the October 7 massacre and the explosion of antisemitism, Diaspora Jewry is seeking a stronger connection with Israel. The Jewish state should embrace them and implement a strategy at the highest levels of government.

Unfortunately, there is too often a lack of such a strategy in the Israeli government. There are several government ministries or semi-governmental organizations that aim to strengthen Israel-Diaspora ties, including the Foreign Ministry, Prime Minister’s Office, Diaspora Affairs Ministry, Education Ministry, and what are known as the “National Institutions” – the Jewish Agency, World Zionist Organization, United Israel Appeal, and Jewish National Fund. While each has its own niche and varying degrees of effectiveness, much more can be done by coordinating their efforts.

The Israeli government should form an inter-ministerial committee for Israel-Diaspora relations, with representatives of the aforementioned ministries on the director-general level, as well as high-level representatives of the Finance Ministry and National Institutions. The committee should be co-chaired by the Prime Minister’s Diaspora affairs adviser and the Prime Minister’s Office director-general, whose job includes effective coordination between government ministries.

Currently, there is no Diaspora affairs adviser at the Prime Minister’s Office. One should be appointed and empowered at the earliest opportunity. Alternatively, the leadership of the task force should be in the hands of the Foreign Ministry, at the director-general level.

Global leaders have a crucial role to play as well. In this big world that we inhabit, values, decency, and moral clarity matter. Now, more than ever, we need world leaders to wake up and act. Apologies without action are simply words with little meaning.

When we stand together, we not only defend Jews but we also defend the rights to democracy and freedom. When we say “Never Again,” we also need to say now and always.

Published in The Jerusalem Post, November 27, 2024.

Israel played an outsize role in American politics in the last year, with protests accompanied with antisemitic harassment and sometimes violence across the country, a Muslim voters’ movement not to vote for Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris, and the issue may have played a role in Harris’s choice of vice president.

Harris lost Dearborn, Michigan, the city with the highest Arab-American concentration, which usually votes blue, but was the epicenter of the “uncommitted” campaign to punish her for the Biden administration’s position on Israel.

Her results in the Jewish community is less clear; a major exit poll showed her doing receiving 79% of the Jewish vote – the best result since 2000 – but it did not include California and New York, the states with the largest Jewish populations. A poll in New York showed Trump getting 43% of the Jewish vote, when typically 20-30% of Jews vote Republican.

What lesson will the Democrats learn about Israel and antisemitism from the poll results?

It’s clear that trying to have things both ways when it comes to those areas was not a viable strategy.

Providing Israel with aid and touting the justice of its war against Hamas and Hezbollah, but also publicly complaining about Israel every day does not satisfy either political side. Decrying harassment of Jewish students but also shoehorning Islamophobia into every statement about antisemitism, while also saying that the protesters have the right ideas only emboldens the antisemites.

Polling is clear that Americans on the whole are more pro-Israel than pro-Palestinian and oppose antisemitism. Yet, as we saw in the last year, the Democratic Party’s left flanks has different views about Israel and the validity of antisemitism complaints.

If the Democrats decide they need to shore up the base, then they may lean more heavily into their criticisms of Israel, its prosecution of its wars against Iranian proxies and its continued presence in Judea and Samaria, and calls to reevaluate military aid may become more commonplace.

If the Democrats decide that they need to bring in more undecided voters, the party mainstream may stop trying to pander to anti-Israel voices and once again full-throatedly own up to their policy of support for Israel in this war. That does not mean there will not be disagreements between Democrats and the current right-wing Israeli government, but there could be a change in tone.

That being said, it is important to remember that Americans generally don’t vote on foreign policy. It would be going too far to say that Israel policy lost Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris the election, and therefore those policies will not be a top priority in the party’s post-election post-mortem.

**The opinions expressed in Misgav publications are the authors’ alone.**

Key points:

• The IHRA definition, including its examples, is one of the most useful tools in combatting antisemitism and its wide adoption should be encouraged.
• Organizations should consider using legal means to ensure Jews do not face discrimination, while being sensitive to freedom of expression.
• Hateful rhetoric against Jews and Israel online is strongly correlated with real-world antisemitic incidents. Social media companies should be encouraged to train moderators to recognize antisemitism and to be transparent about how they implement policies against hate.
• A full-time, ambassador-level special envoy would help Israel be more effective in the global war on antisemitism.

Introduction:

Antisemitism has been on the rise in the West for the past decade, and the number of incidents as well as expressions of Jew-hatred on social media have exploded since October 7, 2023. There are several strategies that governments and organizations advocating for Israel can adopt, that are backed up by data or past successes. These include adopting the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance Working Definition of Antisemitism, using legal avenues against institutions that discriminate against Jews and pushing social media outlets to effectively implement policies against hate. It would also be beneficial for Israel to have a full-time envoy dedicated to these efforts. Finally, the UK Jewish community’s battle against antisemitic Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn can serve as a useful example for how a community can effectively combat antisemitism.

IHRA:

The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance Working Definition of Antisemitism is one of the most useful tools in fighting antisemitism – something that the Foreign Ministry already recognizes. It is impossible to fight something that cannot be defined.

It is important to encourage institutions of all kinds, from governments to universities to NGOs and even to corporations, to adopt the definition and use its parameters in their efforts to combat antisemitic hate crimes and discrimination. It is worth noting that the idea is not necessarily for new laws against hate crimes, hate speech or discrimination to be passed, but for the authorities to actively refer to IHRA when determining whether those crimes are antisemitic or not.

Alternative definitions of antisemitism have been promoted to weaken the understanding of the ties between antisemitism and anti-Zionism. It should be noted that the IHRA definition has been called the “gold standard,” adopted by 45 governments and over 1200 entities around the world. Georgia adopted the IHRA definition in January 2024, making it the 35th US state to do so.

The IHRA working definition is: “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.”

The examples that come with the definition are part and parcel of the definition, in that they demonstrate its real-life application, including the fact that anti-Israel actions and speech are usually thinly-veiled versions of antisemitism. Institutions adopting IHRA should be encouraged to consider the examples, as well, because without the examples, the definition is not particularly substantive or useful. Therefore, all entities need to understand that adopting the definition means adopting the examples.

Legal:

Most democratic countries have laws against antisemitism in various forms, even if they have robust protections for freedom of expression as the US does. While hate speech is protected by the US Constitution and some antisemitic speech may be protected in other democratic countries, if these incidents take place on a college campus or in the workplace, are pervasive or are part of a pattern of discrimination, or if an institution does not take reasonable measures to prevent or stop them, there could be a basis for legal action.

Two of the leading organizations on this front are the Louis D. Brandeis Center in the US, and UK Lawyers for Israel. The US Department of Education has opened numerous investigations into universities following complaints by the Brandeis Center of discrimination against and harassment of Jews in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. The Brandeis Center has also fought campus antisemitism in court. UK Lawyers for Israel has prompted investigations of university administrators and arrests of figures for illegal displays of support for terrorist groups.

Free speech and academic freedom are sensitive issues when it comes to combatting antisemitism. The Brandeis Center, which focuses primarily on campus antisemitism, has useful resources to help understand how to balance these values, including effective anti-discrimination policies and communications against antisemitism by administrators of prominent universities across North America.

Social media: 

Antisemitism has been a constant on social media from its inception, allowing those who espouse views that were widely rejected in the West, certainly in the US, to find and amplify one another. Boundless Israel, an organization that uses data to develop better approaches to fighting antisemitism, has done extensive research on social media, specifically. They found a correlation between the proliferation of terms like “apartheid” and “colonialism” about Israel on social media and a rise in real-world incidents of antisemitism.

One of Boundless’s most important findings has been that “pro-Israel messaging is stuck in an echo chamber.” In other words, when messages are posted on social media meant to counter antisemitism, they are not reaching the audience that needs to hear it. Even the best messages will not break through the walls of vitriol on X, TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, etc. against Jews and Israel. Positive messaging should continue, but its impact should not be overestimated.

The research points to a number of actions the Government of Israel can take. The first is to raise awareness of harm to minorities and other vulnerable groups in messages to educators, policymakers, law enforcement, and the business/tech community, and to emphasize that this includes Jews, who, contrary to what some in the West think, are not part of the white majority. Among the points to emphasize in these conversations is how online hate turns into crimes against marginalized communities. In addition, note that the targeting of these communities undermines AmericanWesternetc. values.

Law enforcement and intelligence agencies are often less aware of antisemitism coming from the Left. In communications between Israelis and their foreign counterparts in such agencies about antisemitism, it is important to note that it is often cloaked in language related to human rights, social justice, or other seemingly legitimate political discourse, and encourage training in this area.

Advocacy that is aimed at encouraging social media companies to combat Jew-hatred on their platforms has been helpful, and the government should continue in its efforts, much of which have been conducted by the Justice Ministry domestically, and can also take place via Israeli missions abroad. That being said, it must be understood that this strategy has its limits because social media companies’ engagement-based business models encourage posts that spark a heightened emotional response – including anger and fear. In addition, TikTok is controlled by the Chinese Communist Party which, despite its strict crackdown on communications, has allowed antisemitism to take root in China and to fester on the video-sharing platform.

The Interparliamentary Task Force to Combat Online Antisemitism, which includes lawmakers from Israel, the US, Canada, the UK and more, has suggested the following proposals for social media giants’ policies, which Israeli representatives can suggest: Tech platforms should have a specific and consistent policy for removing antisemitic content and users, and they should be transparent about how they implement them, including downranking of posts; antisemitism should be a specific category in social media companies’ transparency reports, including reporting the volume of antisemitic content; the companies should facilitate training for platform moderators to identify antisemitism.

CyberWell, an NGO dedicating to fighting online antisemitism recommends legislation requiring platforms to disclose antisemitic content to regulators and make it available to researchers and NGOs, to disclose the rate of engagement with reported hateful content that is not removed, to allow external audits to ensure that the social media sites do not gain ad revenue from hateful content, and to address antisemitism in non-English languages, with an emphasis on Arabic.

Boundless recommends that businesses be discouraged from advertising on platforms that do not take action to remove hate, to incentivize the companies to enforce their own policies on antisemitic and other hateful content. This has had some success in the past.

DEI:

The proliferation of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion departments and the popularity of the ideology behind it on college campuses, in corporations, and beyond have been behind many of the recent manifestations of antisemitism that view Jews as an oppressor class and Israel as a colonial entity. Legacy Jewish organizations have tried to work with DEI over the years with little success. In recent years, and especially since October 7, there is increased awareness of the antisemitism embedded in DEI. While it is too early to say what has been effective in combatting DEI, legal action against discriminatory policies by campuses or actions – say, by US college professors who bully Israelis in their classes – could be possible. In addition, donors have begun pulling funds from universities that have not fought antisemitism on their campuses. That could backfire if the contributions are replaced by anti-Israel funders like Qatar, but exposing foreign actors pouring funds into American and other Western campuses with ulterior motives could serve as an important counterbalance.

Countering DEI has also become a major conservative cause in the US, specifically, as well as in other Western countries, though to a lesser extent. It is important to take care to keep antisemitism nonpartisan, in the sense that there are antisemites on the Right and on the Left, with different messages gaining prominence at different times and sometimes working in tandem. The message should be that decent people of all political stripes should join together to fight antisemitism, and not that antisemitism is part of, for example, the Republican fight against “wokeness.”

Special envoy:

Israel’s approach to antisemitism is somewhat muddled by the fact that there are units in multiple government ministries meant to address the problem. Ideally, the Foreign Ministry could work together with the Diaspora Affairs Ministry to coordinate messaging and pool resources to face this global challenge.

The appropriate conduit through which the Foreign Ministry should implement the government policy recommendations is the special envoy for combating antisemitism, though the Foreign Minister himself could and should put his weight behind the envoy’s efforts.

The position of special envoy should be upgraded, allowing the Foreign Ministry to have someone focused on combatting antisemitism full time, as well as staff to support her. Israel should not lag behind other countries in the seriousness with which it takes this position. The position should hold the rank and status of an ambassador, and be given to someone with a relevant background, such as experience in international law or academia, or to a diplomat who rose through the ranks of the Foreign Ministry and worked on related issues.

This is not a position for a celebrity envoy, as it is not so much about media appearances as it is about making the case for adopting policies against antisemitism to government entities, corporations, and other bodies.

The Corbyn case:

Perhaps one of the greatest successes of a Diaspora community in fighting a clear and present antisemitic danger was the British Jewish community vs. former UK Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn.

Corbyn, who came from the party’s far-left flank, rode a change in the party’s by-laws to its leadership, campaigning as a populist and socialist leader. But he also was someone who laid a wreath on the graves of the terrorists who murdered Israeli athletes in Munich and made antisemitic comments while making sure to say “Zionists” or “Israel” instead of Jews, and publicly supported antisemites.

The UK Jewish community was united to an extent rarely seen in its opposition to Corbyn. From Jewish lawmakers in the Labour Party to community organizations to prominent media figures, diverse actors came together on a mission to expose and highlight Corbyn’s antisemitism. The politicians resigned, people wrote in the newspapers and spoke on TV programs, and official complaints were filed within the party and submitted to government human rights watchdogs. Some of the aforementioned strategies were used, including legal means, and efforts to push for the inclusion of the IHRA definition’s examples in Labour’s guidelines on antisemitism. The community seemed to throw everything it had at Corbyn, trying all avenues.

The message became clear to the non-Jewish majority in the UK, with celebrities campaigning against Corbyn. Though antisemitism is not the only reason, Labour had a poor showing in the 2019 election and Corbyn did not become prime minister.

Two key lessons can be drawn from the Labour antisemitism scandal and the campaign against Corbyn. The first is that Diaspora Jewish communities are more effective at fighting antisemitism when they unite their top organizations, famous figures and others behind one cause. The second is that there may not be one specific strategy to fight antisemitic phenomena or figures. Rather, the approach of trying every angle and chipping away at the antisemitic challenge or threat may ultimately be most effective.

Key Messages:

• DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) departments are the executive arm of an increasingly dominant ideology in American educational institutions and the business world, which reduces people to identity groups based on innate characteristics and ranks them by oppressor or oppressed status.

• Jews do not fit into the lines drawn by this ideology and are inevitably and erroneously categorized as “white.” This means that successes by individual Jews are inevitably viewed as a conspiracy to oppress the downtrodden, much like classic antisemitic tropes.

• The rise of antisemitism on college campuses and within major corporations, and the inability or unwillingness of administrations to respond effectively to such incidents, underlines the necessity of Jews disengaging from the DEI rubric.
• Jewish organizations, individuals and supporters of the Jewish people should refuse to engage with DEI, whether in word or deed, and withdraw funding or other forms of cooperation with institutions that mandate DEI practices or promote the ideology that undergirds it.

After the October 7 massacre, anti-Israel demonstrations proliferated in universities and cities across the West, complete with celebrations of the attack as “decolonialization” and chants of genocidal slogans such as “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” and “by any means necessary.” When the presidents of three of the highest-regarded universities in the world could not bring themselves to say that calling for the genocide of the Jewish people violates their campuses’ codes of conduct, there was widespread shock in Israel, in American Jewish communities and beyond.

This shock was a result of two factors. Firstly, due to the expectation that any moral person should be able to clearly and unequivocally oppose calls for genocide. Secondly, the unwillingness of these university presidents in particular to identify calls for genocide of Jews as unacceptable harassment was especially hypocritical and disturbing, given that North American college campuses have become places where hyper-sensitivity, what social psychologist Jonathan Haidt calls “safetyism,” rules the day. Students on such campuses have protested undercooked rice as disrespectful to Japanese students and canceled yoga classes because of “cultural appropriation.” When “microaggressions” are quickly addressed, why is this blatant macroaggression against Jews on campus viewed as a “context-dependent decision”?

The ideology that DEI puts into action

The answer has many names – “wokeness” and “critical race theory” are popular with its critics, while its adherents tend to prefer “social justice” or even just “progressivism.” Whole books have been written about this ideology, which can be hard to define in part because its adherents conveniently refuse to accept any definitions. Writer Thomas Chatterton Williams explains that “wokeness” involves:

“the constellation of social-justice concerns and discursive lenses that have powerfully influenced institutional decision making…to sort individuals into abstract identity groups arranged on spectrums of privilege and marginalization…The idea that patriarchy, white supremacy, transphobia, homophobia, Islamophobia, and other ills inexorably saturate our lived realities and that the highest good is to uncover and oppose them is, I think, a central component of ‘wokeness’ as both its proponents and critics understand it.”

After this sorting takes place, Natan Sharansky wrote in a recent essay, this ideology:

“assesses the moral value of an action not on its own terms but based on the identity of the agent, asking not ‘Is this right?’ but ‘Does it help the victimized class?’ What is worse, if an action is thought to aid the downtrodden, it becomes acceptable to violate the most basic rights of those deemed to be their oppressors, including the rights of free speech and physical security.”

Put simply, instead of individual merit and color-blind opportunities, which were central to American liberalism, this ideology of the Left is a form of identity politics that categorizes people by race, makes far-reaching assumptions about them on that basis, and ranks them by level of oppression. The ideas about race and power are based on the American understanding of those terms even when exported to other countries whose reality is very different than that in the US. The more oppressed someone is by this ideology’s metrics, the more morally superior they are and therefore deserving of “allyship.”

Being an ally does not mean ensuring that the playing field is as level as possible for everyone to have a fair start; according to this ideology, different outcomes are indicators of racism. Put into action, the idea is to intentionally discriminate against some and favor others because of their innate characteristics.

This ideology is taught in varying ways in educational institutions from preschool through university. Its executive arm, that is, the way the ideology is translated into action in school administrations and the corporate world, is called “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” or DEI. As major business consulting firm McKinsey and Company says on its website, DEI “is used to describe three values that many organizations today strive to embody to meet the needs of all walks of life…Companies that are diverse, equitable, and inclusive are better able to respond to challenges, win top talent, and meet the needs of different customer bases.”

That sounds harmless enough, but in reality, DEI professionals view populations through a collective lens based on immutable characteristics on a scale of oppressed to oppressor. The term “equity” does not mean equal opportunities.

DEI, as it is usually practiced, views oppressed classes as deserving greater benefits, such as lowering the standards of math classes that must be racist if fewer Black students succeed, or policing aforementioned “microaggressions.” In DEI exercises and sessions, which are sometimes mandatory, employees, students, and even parents of students are required or encouraged to organize themselves by race into “affinity groups.” Proponents say this creates a safe space to discuss issues related to identity, while opponents say this is a new form of racial segregation, in which white students are shamed and Black students are told they are victims.

Jews don’t match DEI ideology’s rubrics

Where do Jews fit into these ideas? Not very well. A Harvard CAPS-Harris poll from December 2023 found that two-thirds of those surveyed aged 18-24 believe that Jews, in general, are oppressors, though 73% of respondents of all ages said this is false.

Jews do not match DEI’s facile categories – Israeli Jews even less so than their American counterparts – yet they are inevitably and mistakenly viewed as white, powerful, and wealthy. That power and wealth is seen as the result, in the best case, of benefitting from systemic racism, and in the worst case, of an outright conspiracy of white, powerful people against less fortunate groups. A conspiracy to empower and enrich Jews by oppressing the downtrodden? Sounds familiar.

This ideology is what brought us to the point where American college professors celebrated the October 7 massacre by saying that the murder, rape, assault and abduction of thousands of Israelis was an “exhilarating…[and] energizing” act of “liberation and…living with dignity.”

Despite the glaring problems this ideology long posed for Jews, some organizations embraced it over the years. The Anti-Defamation League published a document in early 2023 saying that “addressing Jewish concerns as a part of DEI is essential.” DEI strategies should include the needs of Jewish employees “regardless of their perceived status in a society or organization,” the ADL writes, even though “perceived status in a society or organization” is, in fact, what DEI is all about. The ADL also emphasized the truth, that “Jews are a diverse and multiracial community,” but instead of that being a jumping-off point to explain why the boxes into which DEI seeks to put people do not make sense, they followed it up with the ideology’s jargon about “intersectionality.”

Senior Vice President of the ADL, Adam Neufeld told Jewish Insider in December 2023– after the response on campus to the October 7 massacre and the university presidents’ testimony to Congress – that DEI is part of the solution to antisemitism on campus. It only needs to be fixed to include antisemitism. American Jewish Committee Director of Academic Affairs, Sara Codin said in the same article: “We tend not to take an overly divisive approach when it comes to DEI…We hope we can create initiatives that actually work within DEI structures.” While ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt noted that, “The failure of many of these DEI offices to effectively respond to the crisis right now is quite an indictment,” it appears that the organization remains committed to working within DEI frameworks.

This approach taken by major Jewish organizations like the ADL and AJC for years has clearly failed. Their former CEOs called for an end to DEI, recognizing that it is structurally and irreparably antisemitic. Influential Jewish-American journalist Bari Weiss has launched a campaign against DEI, saying that abandoning the ideology will go a long way in reducing antisemitism and addressing many other ills on university campuses.

Jewish institutions must reject DEI

Jewish organizations and institutions, Israeli government bodies and civil society groups, and all opponents of antisemitism must reject DEI. There are a number of concrete steps that can be taken towards dismantling DEI.

• You can’t beat DEI with DEI: “The master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house. They may allow us temporarily to beat him at his own game, but they will never enable us to bring about genuine change.” This quote from black, lesbian, and feminist writer Audre Lorde about overthrowing a “racist patriarch” is closely associated with DEI ideology — but it is a helpful idea to remember for those who oppose it.Inserting the consideration of antisemitism into an essentialist, illiberal ideology is doomed to fail because Jews do not fit into its simplistic boxes. Such an effort continues to legitimize the very ideas through which antisemitism has been cultivated on many quarters of the Left. Caution must be taken not to use the language of DEI and the ideology undergirding it.

  It is fine to fight antisemitism by pointing out the truth, that Jews are not “white” by the American or European idea of the word, and are indigenous to Israel. It is fine to take pride in diversity and the success of members of minority groups in Israeli society. And it is great for Jews of different backgrounds to be proud of where their families came from and to educate others about it. However, to speak about Ethiopian or Mizrahi Jews as though they are somehow more legitimate than their Ashkenazi counterparts ultimately lends credence to false narratives and does more damage than good.

• Focus on instilling pride in Jewish identity on its own terms: Jews are not only a nation and not only a religion and not only white or only “people of color.” Jews are Jews, and Jews are one People. The unique nature of Jewish identity should be a source of pride. Jewish institutions and organizations do not have to contort themselves into new shapes to fit the boxes promoted by ideologies like DEI. When fighting antisemitism, this message and approach must be made a priority.

• Disengage and divest from DEI: Beyond the messages and words used, organizations, officials, activists, donors and others should not associate themselves with DEI and institutions that use it, just as any fair-minded person would not intentionally associate him or herself with racism.When Jewish organizations look for partners and when the government looks for service providers, they should be clear that DEI principles cannot in any way be part of the process.

  Jewish philanthropists and foundations should divest from organizations that promote DEI or put it into effect – venture capitalist Bill Ackman has been a prominent example of this policy.

• Rejecting DEI must not mean an end to Black-Jewish engagement: Finally, attempts to engage positively with the African-American community should continue, and Jewish communal organizations who pride themselves on fighting racism should continue to do so.The American Jewish community has a history of partnering with African-Americans to fight racism. The principled belief that discrimination against one group is an opening for injustice against all, which has long animated Jewish-Black cooperation, is also a good reason to dump DEI.

  What should be clear is that this activism and cooperation are meant to advance what Martin Luther King, Jr. called “a nation where [children] will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” There are plenty of African-American organizations, activists, writers and thinkers who believe this, including ones who provide alternatives to the usual DEI training.

In a private letter to US antisemitism envoy Deborah Lipstadt, Israeli President Isaac Herzog this week called the Biden administration’s national strategy to combat antisemitism “a historic moment deserving of recognition and gratitude… The formidable language of the report contains a sound strategy, well-defined pillars and concrete, viable goals that will help create more tolerant and open societies.”

Well, yes and no. It is certainly important that the Administration acknowledges the growing threat to Jewish Americans amid record spikes in antisemitism and that it has made suggestions for action to counter antisemitism. But the language of the report is less than “formidable.”

As Jacob Olidort (director of the Center for American Security and its Middle East Peace Project at the America First Policy Institute) points out, “Charlottesville” appears four times in President Joe Biden’s two-page cover letter, including in the first sentence. “Judaism” appears seven times in the strategy document and “Zionism” does not appear at all. The acronym “LGBTQI+” appears seven times, “gender” seven times, “equity” 10 times, and “Islamophobia” 21 times.

Furthermore, the Biden Administration’s strategy paper omits any mention of Islamists, the Iranian regime, the Palestinian Authority, or the BDS movement. It “embraces” the super-important International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism, which includes attacks directed against Israel, but does not officially adopt it.

Instead, the paper “welcomes and appreciates” the Nexus Document, a tendentious definition of antisemitism which claims that no criticism of Israel or Zionism, however defamatory, should be considered antisemitic.

Adding insult and ridicule to dumb injury, the Biden strategy paper then includes the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) – which has a notorious record of hostility towards Jews and Israel – as a partner in its plan, babbling that the Administration wants to “give people a chance to change their past behavior.”

In short, the strategy paper is blind to the weaponization of progressive and Islamic ideologies in fueling contemporary forms of antisemitism, especially antisemitism which masquerades as “only” opposition to Israeli policies.

BREAKING DOWN the report points to several underlying flaws.

First, as British columnist Melanie Phillip pointed out several years ago, even when condemning antisemitism, politicians and intellectuals feel the compunction to condemn “Islamophobia” and “all forms of racism” at the same time and in the same sentence.

This politically correct refusal to acknowledge the uniqueness of antisemitism (and the overwhelming preponderance of antisemitism, above and beyond all other hatreds including anti-Moslem hatred) demonstrates precisely that Jew-hatred. “People can’t stand the uniqueness of antisemitism because they can’t stand the uniqueness of the Jewish people,” says Phillip.

Second, the issue of antisemitism manifesting as mere anti-Zionism remains a flash point. As Prof. Eugene Kontorovich pointed out in rigorously erudite testimony given last week to the subcommittee on global health, global human rights, and international organization of the US House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs, referencing the Nexus document is an outrage. That document justifies double standards against Israel, while purveying the illusion that antisemitism is only such when it presents as pure unreasoned Jew-hatred or as stereotypes and “tropes.”

But this is demonstrably not true. Accusations leveled against Israel often resemble those made by antisemites throughout history. Kontorovich: “Instead of the Jews being accused of killing Gentile children, Israel is accused of deliberately killing Palestinian children; instead of Jews being accused of causing plague among Gentiles, Israel is accused of causing disease among Palestinians.”

“And the accusation of ‘apartheid’ is a modern blood libel – an absurd ‘Big Lie,’ but inciteful in ways that cannot be rectified by mere refutation. Just as the classic blood libel resonated with the theological preoccupations of earlier ages, today’s claims resonate with the ethnic justice concerns of our times. That in our times several members of Congress can level such libels against the Jewish State without facing sanctions from their party demonstrates how dangerous ‘polite’ antisemitism is.”

The writer Peter Savodnik delves even deeper into this: “The American left has stumbled into the bottomless rage of identity politics,” he says. “They have embraced the new racial-gender taxonomy, which reimagines thousands of years of Jewish history into a wokified diorama. Today, the Arab-Israeli conflict can only be seen through this flattening prism, with Israel playing the role of the white, colonial settler and the Palestinian that of the settler’s dark-skinned, indigenous victim.”

“By squeezing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict into the Procrustean Bed of left-wing identitarianism, the new progressives have alienated the Jew, who for the most part remains attached to the Jewish State, from the American body politic. By transforming the Jewish State into a force for evil, they have forced the Jew to defend that attachment. They have created a space separating the Jew from America, and, in that space, they have legitimized violence against the Jew for defending the indefensible: Israel’s supposed apartheid, colonialism, white supremacy, ethnic cleansing, and genocide.”

In short, by dancing around this core issue, namely that Israel is the focal point for much contemporary antisemitism from the Left and its intersectional allies, the Biden administration strategy is far less than it seems.

Third, because of the above problematics, one must wonder whether government-led programs help or hinder the fight against antisemitism. US presidential historian Tevi Troy details (in an enlightening essay in National Affairs) Bush W., Trump, and Biden administration initiatives in this regard, reaching the conclusion that caution is warranted. These initiatives tend to create unwanted and unintended consequences.

“Sometimes an organization designed to address the problem ends up exacerbating it. The UN Human Rights Council, in which human rights abusers routinely condemn democratic nations, is a paradigmatic example of his phenomenon.”

The Biden administration strategy relies heavily on existing government-enabled diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives to address root causes and promote anti-hate education. This is a worrisome development given that some DEI offices are more likely to house anti-Semitism than to combat it. A Heritage Foundation study of the social media patterns of 800 campus DEI officers found that they tended to reflect a level of hostility toward Israel that went far beyond policy disagreement and often descended into anti-Semitism.

Ridiculously, the Biden Administration also mandates agencies with no apparent connection to the issue to “fight” antisemitism. For example, it directs the Department of Transportation to “better understand the extent to which race, ethnicity and religion or religious appearance impact assaults on, harassment of and discrimination against transit riders.” The Department of the Interior is told to “highlight new resources on Jewish American contributions to American history and disseminate the content through the National Park Service website and mobile app.”

Troy: “This reminds me of President Ronald Reagan’s quip that ‘the most terrifying words in the English language are I’m from the government, and I’m here to help’.”

Instead of this, Troy suggests a deep scrub of government-funded programs that indirectly subsidize antisemitism, such Higher Education Act Title VI programs that provide funds to anti-Israel Middle East Studies programs, academic departments that have issued extremist anti-Israel statements, and public institutions that pay membership dues to the virulently anti-Israel Middle Eastern Studies Association. Federal funds also should be cut to public schools that assign textbooks containing anti-Semitic materials, encourage anti-Jewish attitudes through ethnic studies or anti-Israel programs, or pay for anti-Semitic critical-race-theory training.

In addition to these education-related expenditures that may have the unintended impact of increasing anti-Semitism, Troy recommends that the US also cut off foreign aid that has a similarly destructive effect. These include contributions to the UN Human Rights Council, UNESCO, UNRWA, and any funds that go to programs that subsidize anti-Semitic textbooks or Palestinian terrorism.

Eliminating these programs would not only save taxpayers money and reduce funding to those who purvey antisemitism but also send the strongest possible signal that the federal government does not tolerate this animus, whatever its source may be.

Another orbit that the US government could usefully tackle is online hate, even though extreme freedom of expression is sacred to progressives.

According to the new “Toxicity Analysis,” a monthly report of the Combat Antisemitism Movement published in partnership with the Network Contagion Research Institute, a total of 1.3 million tweets pertaining to Jewish topics were collected in January 2023, and a statistically significant random sample of 10,000 were indexed using a machine learning model. The results showed 14% of the tweets were identity attacks on Jews, 11% were toxic toward Jews, 7% were insults to Jews, and 1% were threats against Jews.

Biden ought to start leaning on US social media giants to clean-up their act instead of funding more uncertain DEI programs.

Published in The Jerusalem Post, June 30, 2023; and Israel Hayom, July 2, 2023