BY MAX WEISS
“I am anti-Israel, I am anti-Zionist also, but I am NOT anti-Jewish.” So said Palestinian intellectual Fayez A. Sayegh in 1956. I was reminded of this statement, a sentiment I personally share, on October 2, when members of the Princeton community received an email from Vice Provost for Institutional Equity and Diversity Michele Minter. The email—with the subject line, “Please report incidents of graffiti and vandalism”—begins as follows:
Dear members of the Princeton University community,
Over the past few months, several instances of graffiti, stickers and anonymous messages with anti-Israel or explicitly antisemitic content have been found on our campus and in the Municipality of Princeton. Graffiti and other defacement of property are not protected speech. They are illegal vandalism, and the perpetrators can be prosecuted.
Circulating this message on Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, the holiest occasion in the Jewish calendar, was an interesting administrative decision. While some may take umbrage at the timing, this email is an instructive case of anti-antisemitism being weaponized in the service of what I call anti-anti-Zionism, and not, as is all too often claimed, the other way around. In other words, it might be “antisemitism”—both explicit and implicit—that is the ostensible target of this alert, but “content” labeled “anti-Zionist” or “anti-Israel” are the real culprits being policed, targeted for condemnation and, increasingly, for criminalization.
While the university announces in the email that it will “not generally draw attention to specific incidents of offensive graffiti and vandalism, as doing so would support the attention-seeking aims of perpetrators and could encourage more such incidents,” there were reports of “anti-Israel/pro-Palestinian graffiti” and vandalism around the town of Princeton in August and September, “bias intimidation incidents” according to the local police blotter.
Princeton denounces these incidents as “criminal and cowardly acts.” Meanwhile, the university’s law enforcement agency “is actively patrolling across campus, including at the Center for Jewish Life and other sensitive areas” in order “to remove unauthorized content, investigate, document the incidents, and reach out to those directly impacted.”
We can only speculate what Princeton means by “anti-Israel.” Is description of the Israeli war of annihilation in Gaza as “genocide” a criminal and cowardly act? Are the International Court of Justice, the United Nations, scholarly associations, and human rights organizations who have concluded that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza themselves purveyors of “anti-Israel . . . content” and, consequently, “perpetrators” who should be prosecuted? Is condemnation of the illegal Israeli occupation of Palestinian land or of unlawful Israeli aggression and extrajudicial killings abroad “anti-Israel”? Does any critical mention of Jewish priority, privilege, and supremacy between the river and the sea qualify as “anti-Israel”? Is the phrase “from the river to the sea” itself “anti-Israel”? What would the university do with Fayez A. Sayegh’s statement? What will the university do now that I have claimed it here as my own? Princeton is scarcely prepared to deal with such subtleties, I fear, which only bodes further curtailments of free speech and academic freedom for those who run afoul of such ill-defined protocols.
Princeton has presented a breathtaking language of repression, leapfrogging the International Holocaust Remembrance Association (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism in its vagueness. If IHRA fails to sensibly manage the distinction between what constitutes anti-Israel/anti-Zionist and antisemitic “content,” at least that text states explicitly that “criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country” is not antisemitic. Without further clarification, any and all criticism of Israel can be logically understood, prima facie, as being “anti-Israel” and, hence, (implicitly) antisemitic according to this slipshod Princeton protocol.
Such failure to take language seriously is tantamount to reckless endangerment as universities weather the perilous climate of political repression, institutional blackmail, academic surveillance, and thought policing under the Trump regime. The Princeton community is not alone in confronting this double bind: academic repression deployed by administrators internally amid an ongoing assault on universities by the federal government, donors, trustees, and external agitators.
There is some irony, therefore, in the fact that this coercive and intimidatory email was sent by Vice Provost Minter during the same week that President Christopher L. Eisgruber published his most recent book, Terms of Respect: How Colleges Get Free Speech Right. Eisgruber has taken principled public stands on free speech and academic freedom in the past. “Precisely because great research universities are centers of independent, creative thought,” he wrote in The Atlantic in March, universities “generate arguments and ideas that challenge political power across fields as varied as international relations, biology, economics, and history. If government officials think that stifling such criticism is politically acceptable and legally permissible, some people in authority will inevitably yield to the temptation to do so.”
Apparently, Princeton has determined that “stifling” speech deemed “anti-Israel” is both “politically acceptable and legally permissible.” Speaking truth to power may be acceptable, but only with conditions and permissions. No Princetonian should dare to “challenge political power” if the challenge is directed at the State of Israel.
“University presidents will have to draw lines,” President Eisgruber notes in Terms of Respect. “Doing so is hard, but that is what leadership requires.” Princeton should immediately clarify its standards on this question. The notion that all “anti-Israel . . . content” constitutes implicit antisemitism is untenable, falls outside the norm of public opinion in the United States, and erodes the boundaries of constitutionally protected speech.
Our freedoms inside Princeton’s “orange bubble” are shrinking amid assaults on public liberties outside the ivory tower. If Princeton University “deplores all expressions of hatred directed against any group and seeks to ensure the full inclusivity of its community,” as the Yom Kippur email declares, the administration must also acknowledge the loss, grief, and abandonment experienced by Palestinian students, faculty, and staff. After more than two years of Israel’s genocidal war of annihilation against the Palestinian people, such a double standard and doublespeak in the determination of which persons or group counts as “directly impacted” is indefensible. I am well aware that I will be accused of being “anti-Israel” for saying so.
Max Weiss is professor of history and associated faculty in comparative literature at Princeton University. He is the author of a forthcoming book on the intellectual history of anti-anti-Zionism.
Author is correct; all of that “the land belongs to the Muslim Palestinian people and no Jewish state” propaganda is indeed antisemitic. If Muslims can have 50 states and Arabs 22 states there can be one Jewish state. If you oppose its existence but have no issue with Muslim or Arab states or the proposed Jew-free Palestinian state, then you are indeed an antisemite. What other explanation could there be?
Israel is not a Jewish state. It is the state of the Jews. Big difference.
You’re a bright one! No ethnostate state of any religion or ideology is legitimate, let alone a genocidal one. I’d say keep at it though, for soon the term antisemite will soon become one of the most meaningless in the English language. Washing hands is antisemitic too, since the gesture one does when rubbing soap in their hands emulates that of the smiling merchant (Jewish and Israel supremacists of your ilk would probably say).
Isn’t every Arab state an ethnic state? Isn’t Italy an ethnic state? Isn’t Armenia an ethnic state? Aren’t almost all the Muslim nations an ethnic state with a state religion. How many of those countries have minorities that are able to succeed and even serve in the Supreme Court?
You’re just using an ignorant term to the fame Israel that doesn’t even apply uniquely to Israel. Almost all nations or ethnic states. The Jews of all people deserve sovereignty in a nation where they cannot be prosecuted by other groups.
Antisemites are immune to logic. It could be said that all states are illegitimate political constructs that favor the founders. However, singling out Israel for this is a benchmark of antisemitic intent.
R.S., we tip our hat to you. Antisemitism is a most hoary form of “racial” bigotry, perhaps the hoariest. But the imagery you employ in service of that bigotry strikes us as inspired, fresh, even creative.
(Do say, does “the gesture one does when rubbing soap in their hands emulates that of the smiling merchant” owe to Shylock in The Merchant of Venice or something else?)
I get where you’re coming from, these are complicated and emotional topics, and it’s easy for discussions to get heated. I’d just encourage you to take a breather and maybe put that energy toward something constructive. Actually, there’s a Professor/Associate Professor in Law position open in Auckland that might interest you: https://www.academicjobs.com/university-jobs/professor-associate-professor-in-law-auckland-auckland/419465
.
You can also check AcademicJobs.com for other opportunities — there are plenty of great roles that might be a better outlet for your passion and ideas.
Correct
Anti-Judaism is not antisemitism. Anti-Israel is antisemitic. Anti-Zionism is antisemitic. You have to ignore the raison d’etre of Israel, and the meaning of Zionism, to state you oppose both but are not an antisemite.
“I am anti-Israel, I am anti-Zionist also, but I am NOT anti-Jewish.”
Here are some more quotes just like this one, can you guess who said them?
“I therefore unconditionally defend Jewry against any and all religious
persecution and think that it is hardly possible to express this more clearly
than I have done here.”
“I do not harbor the least “hatred of Jews” and I do not hate the Jews for their
religion. I have no hatred based on national origin or race”
“It is the sorrow of a subjugated people which speaks through my writing”
If you guessed arch-antisemite and forefather of Nazism, Willhelm Marr, you’re correct! Here’s another, just replace with the word “zionism” to better understand the present moment.
“World power belongs to Semitism.”
You describe Wilhelm Marr as an arch-antisemite and forefather of Nazism. That’s a not altogether mischaracterization of the person generally credited with coining the term. But he himself wasn’t an unwavering antisemite, having been married to 2 or 3 Jewish women at different times and changed his mind a few times over the years.
In any event, it is nuts to pronounce Princeton guilty of “implicit antisemitism” on the basis of their Yom Kippur email warning about “anti-Israel or explicitly antisemitic” graffiti and tagging. Or at least it seems so to me? Does anyone other than Professor Weiss think otherwise?
Professor Weiss writes, “We can only speculate>/b> what Princeton means by ‘anti-Israel.'” So at least he is minimally candid, admitting that he is engaging in “speculation,” that is ‘in a course of reasoning based on inconclusive evidence.
Weiss continues his arguably against-self-interest screed, “If…>, but it doesn’t in the eyes of the great many adopters of the IHRA definition of antisemitism, including the US Department of State. Accordingly, Weiss may choose to believe so consonant with his heartfelt creed, but he doesn’t make anything like a convincing case for his claim.
Then following his conditional leadingIf, Weiss continues, “…IHRA fails to sensibly manage the distinction between what constitutes anti-Israel/anti-Zionist and antisemitic ‘content,’ at least that text states explicitly that “criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country” is not “antisemitic.” Yes, indeed, that is facially correct, the IHRA definition does allow that “criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country” is not “antisemitic.” Now, one might think that would meet Weiss’s approval, but whether it does or doesn’t isn’t clear, at least not to this reader in light of his following sentence, “Without further clarification, any and all criticism of Israel can be logically understood, prima facie, as being “anti-Israel” and, hence, (implicitly) antisemitic according to this slipshod Princeton protocol.”. That clearly requires parsing, since it seems internally inconsistent on its face.
How did Weiss go from in effect acknowledging that not even minimally credible to maintain that all criticism of Israel (in particular not criticism similar to that leveled against any other country(!), is antisemitic then to go on: “Without further clarification…” What further clarification does he require of that which he has already seemingly understood clearly enough, and from whom when it is clear enough to the many IHRA adopters?
“any and all criticism of Israel can be logically understood, prima facie, as being “anti-Israel” “Any and all can be logically understood” by whom, Weiss in the interstices of his own self-referential anti-Zionist mind?
“prima facie, meaning “on first sight.” is a legal term for when a party has brought forward sufficient convincing proof to defeat an opponent’s motion for summary judgment, and prevail if the other party is unable to rebut their case at that point. Professor Weiss never makes an even minimally coherent and convincing case, or even an entirely intelligible one, for “implicit antisemitism” against Princeton. He may feel that his employer should “acknowledge the loss, grief, and abandonment experienced by Palestinian students, faculty, and staff,” but whether Princeton should or should not do exactly as Weiss calls upon the school to do, it would do absolutely nothing to support his charge against it of “implicit antisemitism.” Amazingly, Professor Weiss seems not to understand that antisemitism can only be bigotry directed at Jews, never at non-Jews be they Palestinians, Mexicans, Inuit, Native Americans or other non-Jews.
[Michele Minter: “Over the past few months, several instances of graffiti, stickers and anonymous messages with anti-Israel or explicitly antisemitic content have been found on our campus and in the Municipality of Princeton. Graffiti and other defacement of property are not protected speech. They are illegal vandalism, and the perpetrators can be prosecuted.”]
[Weiss: “Circulating this message on Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, the holiest occasion in the Jewish calendar, was an interesting administrative decision. While some may take umbrage at the timing, this email is an instructive case of anti-antisemitism being weaponized in the service of what I call anti-anti-Zionism, and not, as is all too often claimed, the other way around. In other words, it might be “antisemitism”—both explicit and implicit—that is the ostensible target of this alert, but “content” labeled “anti-Zionist” or “anti-Israel” are the real culprits being policed, targeted for condemnation and, increasingly, for criminalization.“] Huh???
[Weiss: “I am well aware that I will be accused of being “anti-Israel” for saying so. If someone should so accuse him, they should first explain how being triggered, as Weiss has been, by his school’s notice to all of antisemitic graffiti and other vandalism on their campus and in town, might be construed as “anti-Israel.” If like me, they are unable to do so, they must come up with a more apt descriptor for this professor and whatever it is that he is ranting about.]
Professor Weiss asks, “Is description (sic) of the Israeli war of annihilation in Gaza as ‘genocide’ a criminal and cowardly act?”
The answer, of course, is no. It is not a criminal or a cowardly act. It is a simple opinion protected by free speech rights and expressed mostly by anti-Israel critics and propagandists. It is a word used to distort reality and falsely attribute evil to Israel’s war efforts.
The genocide label – when applied to Israel – belongs to the family of name calling fallacies for a very good reason. At its heart, the word genocide requires both “intent” to wipe out a population and “mass killings.” Absent “intent,” there is no genocide. Mass killings in a war do not ipso facto mean that genocide has taken place.
So what was Israel’s “intent?” Simply stated, it was to neutralize Hamas (an existential threat) and recover the hostages. These expressed goals do not align in the slightest with genocidal intent.
But wait, the critics and propagandists argue that “intent” can be inferred by the sheer amount of destruction and casualties. Not true. The unique facts of this urban war offer some clarity.
Hamas’ war strategy (operating in tunnels; using civilians as shields; firing from schools, residences, and hospitals) made any destruction greater than it had to be and lay bare the damning fact that blame for civilian loss and infrastructure demolition belong solely to Hamas.
Despite what some may like to think, Hamas doesn’t get to attack Israel with impunity because it hides behind its citizens. That is not how war works.
Indeed, there isn’t a country on this earth with an army that can only kill the bad guys. Still, the IDF’s remarkably low combatant-to-civilian death ratio is an extraordinary achievement and belies the misapplied “genocide” label.
And finally, the International Court of Justice did not conclude “that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza” as Professor Weiss wrongly asserts.
He should know better.