There is a particular sentence now repeated so often in certain Jewish circles that it has become almost liturgical: “Criticizing the Israeli government is not antisemitism.”

Democracies should be criticized. Governments must face scrutiny. Israelis themselves criticize their governments endlessly, loudly, and often harshly.

But slogans are often most revealing not in what they say, but in what they carefully avoid saying.

Recently, both J Street⁠ and T’ruah⁠ shared this message.

J Street posted a graphic saying criticism of Israel is unfairly “flattened into antisemitism.”

T’ruah opposes the IHRA definition of antisemitism supported by many antisemitism scholars, warning that it can suppress legitimate criticism.

Both groups have also supported legal efforts against state adoption of the IHRA framework.

The issue, however, is not whether criticism of Israel can ever be legitimate. It obviously can.

The issue is whether people admit that obsession, double standards, selective outrage, and moral exceptionalism can become antisemitism—even if wrapped in universal ethics.

This dynamic becomes even more striking when expressed explicitly in the language of love and moral responsibility. Rabbi Jill Jacobs, the head of T’ruah, recently defended signing a letter supporting protests against Israeli President Isaac Herzog speaking at JTS commencement.

In explaining herself, she wrote that her criticism stemmed from “deep love and concern for the Jewish people” and Israel’s obligation to be “a light unto the nations.”

Yet Herzog is not an extremist figure, but Israel’s largely ceremonial........

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)