Antisemitism can't be ignored

I know this is long, but please read it. This is really directed at the people who claim anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism. As I have tried to state, you cannot separate Zionism from Judaism. This rabbi explains it much better than I ever could. I put some of the text in bold letters.

Antizionism Is Not Normal, Nor Should We Normalize It
Rabbi Menachem Creditor

I am a child of the Jewish Theological Seminary.

List College, class of 1997. The Davidson School, 2002. The Rabbinical School, 2002. My father walked those halls. My sister did too. My family’s story, like that of so many American Jews, is braided into the sacred mission of JTS since its founding in 1886. My family dried pages of books, one by one, from water damage after a fire ravaged the JTS library stacks in 1966. So for me to speak of JTS is not to speak of an abstraction. It is to speak of a living covenant between generations of Jews who believed that Torah, peoplehood, and the Land of Israel are inseparable threads of an enduring, unbreakable fabric.

So let us speak plainly.

The decision by JTS to honor President Isaac Herzog as a commencement speaker is not a betrayal of Jewish values. It is an affirmation of them.

The recent controversy, amplified beyond all proportion, tells us far more about the current moment than it does about JTS. Six graduating seniors signed a letter opposing Herzog. Six. Twenty-four, four times as many, signed in support. Four JTS rabbinical students, none of them even graduating this year, added their names to the protest letter. This is not a groundswell. It is not a generational rupture. It is a small but loud dissent that is being misrepresented as something larger, something normative.

It is not.

And we must not pretend otherwise.

JTS has never been neutral about the Jewish story. Nor should it be. From its earliest days, shaped by figures like Rabbi Sabato Morais, himself heir to the trauma of Iberian exile, the Seminary understood what too many now forget. Jewish survival without sovereignty is fragile. Jewish dignity without a homeland is contingent. Jewish learning untethered from Jewish peoplehood is incomplete.

Zionism was not an ideological add-on to Judaism. It was from its inception and remains its historical and spiritual unfolding.

To deny that is not nuance. It is willful amnesia.

There is a dangerous confusion taking root in parts of our community, a claim that one can stand within the tradition of serious Jewish learning while severing Judaism from Zionism. That one can graduate from institutions built on the covenantal relationship between people, Torah, and land, and then declare the Jewish state a moral aberration.

This is not intellectual courage. It is a rupture with the very foundations of Jewish existence.

No serious student of Jewish history can miss the pattern. From the destruction of Jerusalem to the expulsions of Spain and Portugal, from the ghettos of Europe to the ashes of the Shoah and the Shavuot 1941 Farhud in Iraq, Jewish vulnerability in exile is not theoretical. It is the central fact of our past. The founders of JTS did not need to debate the necessity of Jewish self-determination. They carried its urgency in their bones.

And now, in a moment when Israel is under sustained assault, militarily, morally, rhetorically, we are told that honoring the President of the Jewish state is somehow beyond the pale.

No.

As current junior at JTS’ List College Noah Lederman put it, ā€œcommencement is not a ā€œsafe space.ā€ It is a sacred space. It marks the transmission of responsibility from one generation of Jewish leader to the next. To invite the President of Israel is to remind graduates that their learning is not detached from the fate of our people. It is bound up with it.

President Herzog does not represent a political party. He represents the State of Israel and the Jewish people. To refuse to hear him is not an act of conscience. It is a cowardly refusal to engage the complicated reality of Jewish sovereignty itself.

We can and must debate policies. We can and must wrestle with moral complexity. That is what Torah demands of us. But there is a line, just as rooted in the Torah and tradition, that must not be crossed. When critique becomes a denial of Israel’s legitimacy, when it echoes the language of those who seek not reform but eradication, it ceases to be Jewish discourse.

It becomes something else.

Let us be honest about the stakes. In a world where antisemitism is resurging with terrifying clarity, antizionism offers a convenient vocabulary through which ancient hatreds can be reframed as moral virtue. When Jews lend their voices to that project, even in the name of justice, they do not purify it. They legitimize it.

We dare not offer that gift.

Zionism is not political preference. It is the modern expression of ancient covenant. It is the insistence that Jewish life, Jewish memory, and Jewish destiny require a home in the world. To strip Judaism of that commitment is not to refine it. It is to hollow it out.

JTS knows this. It has always known this.

That is why it sends its rabbinical students to study in Israel. That is why Israel remains central to its mission. That is why honoring the President of Israel at commencement is not controversial in any deep sense. It is consistent.

The real danger is not that a handful of students dissent. Dissent has always been part of our tradition. The danger is that we begin to treat antizionism as just another legitimate Jewish position, one among many, equally rooted, equally valid.

It is not.

Antizionism is not normal. Nor should we normalize it.

To the graduates of JTS, I say this with love and with urgency: You are heirs to a tradition that refused to disappear, that commits to a Jewish evolutionary tradition. You are beneficiaries of generations who dreamed not only of surviving, but of returning, rebuilding, renewing Jewish life in its fullness, the deepest meaning of three words that have become, once again, defiance: Am Yisrael Chai!

Do not be the generation that forgets why that dream mattered.

Stand in the fullness of your inheritance. Study deeply. Argue fiercely. Care about justice. But never sever yourselves from your people. We were once denied our national identity as the cost of emancipated thinking. Do not imagine that Judaism can be disentangled from the reality of Jewish sovereignty without losing something essential, something irreplaceable, something necessary.

Zionism is not an accessory to Jewish identity.

It is one of its core expressions.

And JTS, in honoring the President of the State of Israel, is not betraying its mission.

It is fulfilling it.

And this was absolutely appalling.

https://x.com/senfettermanpa/status/2052027290578526216?s=46&t=UAL83_A-CXvror8kdGXgQg

@TheMandell , any justification for this?

How is this NOT anti-Semitic?

I don’t know. I don’t know anything about it.

There seems to be scant details in my brief click of it. Is there something in there that makes it seem like it might not be anti-semitic to you?

Start here: Our Approach to Zionism - JVP

There’s no doubt in my mind that it is.

Just wanted to get you to say it.

Unsurprising that you dodged it.

1 Like

I stopped reading here. ā€œZionism is a nineteenth-century political ideologyā€. The is is blatantly false. Zion is Jerusalem. Judaism dates back thousands of years.

JVP is a pro-Palestinian, BDS supporting, anti-Israel far left organization that ignores history and has less than zero credibility.

Try harder.

I saw this on social media.

It explains everything pretty well.

I feel like the world needs a basic primer on this:

Criticizing Netanyahu and the current government of Israel isn’t antisemitic.

Holding Jews everywhere responsible for the actions of the Israeli government and calling them N@zis is.

Supporting Palestinian rights isn’t antisemitic.

Saying Jews don’t deserve self-determination anywhere and that Israel has no right to exist is.

Advocating for peace, equality, and dignity for both peoples isn’t antisemitic.

Celebrating the murder, kidnapping, or r@pe of Jews is.

Being horrified by the suffering in Gaza isn’t antisemitic.

Denying or minimizing the suffering of Israelis on October 7 is.

Opposing specific Israeli policies isn’t antisemitic.

Using classic antisemitic tropes about Jewish power, money, blood, or control is.

Wanting an end to the war isn’t antisemitic.

Calling for the elimination of Israel while demanding no other nation on earth disappear is.

Criticizing Netanyahu isn’t antisemitic.

Saying ā€œthe Jews are Nazisā€ is.

Supporting Palestinian nationalism isn’t antisemitic.

Erasing Jewish indigeneity and history in the land is.

Calling out extremism in Israel — including the army — isn’t antisemitic.

Applying a moral standard to Israel that you apply to literally no other country is.

Wanting accountability for all sides isn’t antisemitic.

Attacking random Jews, synagogues, or Jewish businesses around the world is.

Feeling grief for Palestinian children isn’t antisemitic.
Mocking or dismissing or even celebrating dead Israeli children is.

Defending free speech on Israel-Palestine isn’t antisemitic.

Harassing Jewish students and making campuses unsafe for visibly Jewish people is.

Saying Palestinians deserve freedom isn’t antisemitic.

Saying Jews are ā€œcolonizersā€ is.

Calling for coexistence isn’t antisemitic.

Calling for intifada ā€œfrom the river to the seaā€ without acknowledging what that means
is.

You can oppose war without opposing the existence of a people.
You can advocate for Palestinians without dehumanizing Jews.
You can love Israelis and Palestinians enough to believe neither should have to bury their children.

Do better.

1 Like

You’re finally getting it

Speaking of antisemitism, LIFE IN PRISON for THIS Anti-Semitic turd.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/07/us/colorado-attack-soliman-life-sentence.html?campaign_id=60&emc=edit_na_20260507&instance_id=175261&nl=breaking-news&regi_id=109918001&segment_id=219514&user_id=32dea2d23259901018815704115ce5c2

As it turns out, the guy was also here illegally.

1 Like

I didn’t dodge it. It was a brief thing that didn’t have much evidence one way or the other. It was basically just an accusation and I don’t know why I should defend it or speak against it just because you want me to.

I mean I get it. you want to think that I’m some anti-Semitic a hole. I’m not.

I’m just not going to put up with murder and land stealing from Israel too. There’s a reason why this has gone on for 80 plus years and it isn’t only because Muslims are evil which seems to be a side theme to this thread, including backing a historical right for Israel to murder and steal that you seem to cherish. I disagree.

1 Like

Fundamental question pertaining to this thread. I’ll ask again and I could care less if he is from the right, left, center, independent. Why is someone with a nazi tatoo be able to represent anyone? Again he had the choice to get his nazi tatoo removed but he did not. He got it covered which is in my book even worse. We are not talking about a someone living in poverty. He comes from a wealthy background.

1 Like

You’ll have to ask him. I doubt anyone here is gonna take up the cause that Maine voters are contemplating.

Here’s someone else who has problematic tattoos. Guess who? And yes, WHATABOUT!

  • [ā€œDeus Vultā€] (God wills it): Tattooed in Gothic script on his arm, this phrase was a battle cry during the Crusades and has been adopted by some modern white supremacist groups.
  • [ā€œKafirā€] (Arabic: كافر): Tattooed on his arm, this term means ā€œinfidelā€ or ā€œnon-believerā€ in Islam. Critics, including the Council on American-Islamic Relations, consider it Islamophobic.
  • [Jerusalem Cross]: A large tattoo on his chest, which is a historical Christian symbol but has also been used by extremist groups.
  • [Cross with a Sword]: Located on his arm, this is an allusion to a Bible verse (Matthew 10:34) and is seen by some as representing violent religious imagery
1 Like

It makes no sense Jason any ways you slice it. It is an insult to everyone. Don’t even try to compare him with Hegseth tattoos. This is more than disingenuous on your part. Again, my post has nothing to do with THAT angle. This guy should have never been considered in the first place. That is the point.

Point has been made more than once. No reason to keep it going. The tattoo was clearly problematic and no one is trying to take up for it.

We don’t need to try to score anymore political points off it. Not here anyway.

Why is it so hard to condemn this guy?

I just did. I wouldn’t vote for him if I could.

Others can do as they choose but no reason to keep this going other than to score political points or be combative.