In his book Anti-Semitism, historian and diplomat Deborah Lipstadt offers this definition: “An anti-Semite is someone who hates Jews more than is absolutely necessary. » When someone criticizes Jews with more or more intensity than they would criticize someone else for the same behavior, that is a measure of their anti-Semitism. We believe that many progressive Christian leaders have failed to meet this standard in their criticism of Israel regarding the war in Gaza, following the horrific Hamas attacks on October 7.
Respected colleagues and friends have accused Israel of genocide – a cliché akin to Holocaust inversion and deeply painful for those of us with family trees that are more dead than alive. Others talk about apartheid in Israel – and not just in the West Bank, where it could be a problem – even though Palestinian Israeli citizens make up 20% of the population and hold high office. We see anti-Semitism when Christian leaders refer to Israeli Jews as “white colonialists,” even though the Jewish people are originally from Israel and the majority of Israeli Jews are people of color who returned to their ancestral homeland – a land that some have never left. We observe this through an excessive focus on the war in Gaza and incessant criticism of Israel to the exclusion of other countries.
Such anti-Semitic rhetoric toward Israel is particularly painful given Christianity’s long history of anti-Jewish hatred. Anti-Semitism as we know it today would not exist without Christianity and the early Christian leaders who began to weave a web of hatred against those who did not wish to adhere to a new religion. This would not exist without Martin Luther, who doubled down on hatred and created many of the ideological preconditions for the Holocaust. Even this venerable publication received a credible reception critical for denying the scale of the Holocaust as it unfolded in Europe and undermining the efforts of American Jewish leaders to raise awareness and galvanize American intervention against it.
However, it is not a foregone conclusion that Christians and Jews must be stuck in a relationship of predator and prey, of fraternal rivalry which, with regularity, transforms into fraternal hatred and even fratricide. More recent expressions of Christian philosemitism owe much to the efforts of Church leaders to leverage our shared religious heritage for good. After a long process of internal reflection and dialogue with Jewish leaders, the Catholic Church has taken a decisive turn for the better with this historic decision Nostra Aetate declaration of 1965, which officially prohibited anti-Semitism “directed against Jews at any time and by anyone.” Perhaps more importantly, it dispelled the long-held notion that “the Jews killed Jesus.” In 2023, the Lutheran World Federation released a study paper entitled Hope for the future, which builds on the efforts of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America to recognize Luther’s virulent anti-Semitism and on his 1994 statement affirming “the urgent desire of the Church to live out our faith in Jesus Christ with love and respect for the Jewish people.”
Yet the wounds of history remain fresh – particularly the active participation of Christian religious leaders and institutions in the Holocaust, as well as the subsequent outbursts of anti-Semitism in Europe and the Middle East, to which Christian leaders actively, and sometimes avidly, participated.
It is therefore particularly painful when progressive Christian leaders criticize Israel. Such criticism comes with context, and that context is filled with memories of deceased members of our Jewish family. At the same time, when progressive Christians use anti-Semitic tropes, we do not want to assume malice, although we fear there may be a small amount of it coming from certain corners. We also recognize that there are Christian communities directly affected by the war in Gaza and that Christian values are at stake when it comes to peacemaking and very real civilian suffering.
Moreover, appropriate, even useful, criticism can be leveled at the Israeli government, whose current leaders are reminiscent of American leaders of the recent past. We hope to provide useful language for framing such critiques in a way that avoids anti-Semitic tropes, and thus avoids harm to the Jewish community or Christians’ relationships with it. We hope to stem the tide of mutual alienation and antagonism and strengthen areas of collaboration and dialogue, even amid the current conflict, which is breaking the hearts of us all.
Here are ten statements critical of Israeli policies and leadership that we consider admissible and even useful for Palestinians, Israelis and the prospects for peace.
1. Benjamin Netanyahu must resign as Prime Minister. Israelis left, right and center took to the streets to demand this. Some say he will go down as the worst Jewish leader in history for his failure to protect Israelis and for launching a war that neither freed many hostages nor toppled the Hamas terrorist regime. Opposing Netanyahu is good for Palestinians and Israelis alike. Questioning Israel’s right to exist reinforces the Prime Minister’s claims that the world is against Israel and that only he can resist the hatred.
2. Israeli leaders have no plan. Battlefield commanders emphasize that they can either work to free Israeli hostages or focus on toppling Hamas. The Israeli army left the Gaza Strip in 2005 and Hamas was elected (and then refused to leave) in 2006. The Israeli army has had almost two decades to prepare for any eventuality. Yet there is no indication that it has any direction or purpose, even as it engages in fierce combat in densely populated urban areas.
3. The Israeli military must do more to protect civilians. Its recent shift to lower intensity combat and the use of ground troops shows that this is possible – and should have been done from the start. This could have saved thousands of civilian lives while risking those of more Israeli soldiers. The military had a moral imperative to do so and failed to comply.
4. Aerial bombardments are devastating and cause unnecessary civilian casualties. While Hamas intentionally creates moral and tactical conundrums by using human shields and violence against civilians seeking to escape fighting safely, the Israeli military should nevertheless refrain from bombing densely populated urban areas. .
5. Israel must work with Egypt to alleviate the suffering of civilians in Gaza. The passage of aid to Gaza could be significantly expanded through better cross-border cooperation with Egypt, which controls one of the main entry points into Gaza. Israel and Egypt, who have a strong and long-standing peace agreement, must use it not only for the good of the two states but also for the good of Palestinian civilians in Gaza.
6. The Israeli government must curb settler violence in the West Bank. Since October 7, a minority of Jewish settlers have engaged in targeted violence against Palestinian civilians. This is unethical, goes against Jewish law and values, and is part of a dangerously misguided pursuit of a messianic vision in which the modern State of Israel would expand and encompass the entirety of the biblical land of Israel. These extremists must be exposed not only for their heinous actions against Palestinians, but also for their dangerous misrepresentation of the ideals of most Israeli Jews. Those who seek a Palestinian state and a secure Israeli state must oppose it.
7. Israel should have made efforts to remove West Bank settlements long ago. Even today, it could strengthen the Palestinian Authority as a credible broker, strengthen Palestinian and Israeli moderates, and make daily life easier for Palestinians in the West Bank. It would also demonstrate that settlement expansion does not meet the hopes of most Israelis.
8. Israel could do more to seek peace. After decades of marginalization and isolation by Muslim-majority countries, Israel now maintains full diplomatic and trade relations with major Middle Eastern powers, and Saudi Arabia is also working to advance the normalization of its relationships. The Israeli government is morally obligated to take these opportunities seriously and change the course of its own history. Working towards the creation of a Palestinian state is an essential part of this – it is important not only for the Palestinians but also in terms of Israeli self-interest.
9. Israel must help create the preconditions for a Palestinian state. Besides the Kurds, the Palestinians constitute the most numerous people in the Middle East without a state of their own. While successive Palestinian leaders have rejected Israeli plans to cede almost all of the West Bank and Gaza and divide Jerusalem, Israel has not made daily life tolerable enough in recent years to win over rising generations of Palestinians. that he takes this issue seriously. peace.
10. Israeli leaders must stop undermining the Palestinian Authority. Settler activities in the West Bank and hurtful rhetoric from Israeli political leaders place the PA in an increasingly untenable position. The marginalization of moderate Palestinians may have contributed to the rise of Hamas in Gaza in the first place – and this should be avoided at all costs in the West Bank.
“Does your progressivism include Jews? request a 2017 HuffPost article by Mirah Curzer. It is possible and it should be the case. (Disclosure: One of us, Stanton, is married to Curzer.) Progressive Christians have a moral obligation to ensure that their progressivism is inclusive of Jews, especially given the country’s long history of anti-Jewish polemics. Christianity. Many well-intentioned words and actions have contributed to dramatic increase in anti-Semitic incidents and violence in the United States since October 7, and they have undermined the moral position on which Christian progressives stand. These are avoidable problems for those who seek justice and peace in the Middle East and do not seek to use the current war as an excuse for hatred.
The ten statements above are just some of the many statements Christian leaders can make in their quest for peace and justice for Palestinians and Israelis alike. It is up to them to ensure that they do not use their support for one vulnerable group as a stick against another.
