The Right Way to Fight Anti-Semitism

October 7’s second anniversary is cause for sober reflection on how to confront an ancient hatred.

I remember the early hours of October 7, 2023. I was sitting at my desk in Gig Harbor, Washington, as the first grainy images from the Hamas terror campaign in Southern Israel started to circulate on X. For most of that day, I scrolled through my timeline, attempting to make sense of the carnage and barbarism.

Elay, an Israeli-American contractor who had been working on my home, called me in a panic. Hamas militants had attempted to knock down his wife and children’s door in Southern Israel, but they were fortunately rebuffed by a neighbor armed with a rifle. Elay left for Israel shortly thereafter to rejoin his former special forces unit. He eventually deployed to the Gaza Strip, where he saw heavy fighting.

It’s been two years now, and the Israel–Gaza war has had a profound impact on both the region and on the United States. I have engaged in the debate on domestic policy but have hesitated to comment on foreign policy, where I am less certain. But the anniversary of October 7 prompts us to assess the current situation, and, for those of us care about Israelis abroad and American Jews at home, to consider how best to move forward.

In the immediate aftermath of October 7, outside of the Ivy League and some other university campuses, most Americans were rightly sympathetic to the Jewish state. The horrific images of innocents being slaughtered, partygoers abducted, and Jews gunned down in the streets were enough to shock the conscience of any feeling human being. The intervention of the Israel Defense Forces in Gaza was eminently defensible. A terror campaign of such magnitude as we saw on October 7 demanded a strong response, and, as a longstanding ally, the United States had a duty to offer support.

We are now two grueling years into this conflict, and the public debate has changed. Critics allege that Israel is conducting a “genocide.” This is not true—but an increasingly large number of Americans believe it.

On the right, many supporters of Israel, including prominent Republican politicians, argue that America has a theological duty to support the Jewish state. Their view is based on a complex interpretation of biblical prophecy. As a Catholic, I find it mystifying; as a political analyst, I find it unconvincing. Other supporters would like to shut down critical analysis of the war altogether, equating criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism and suggesting that those who question the wisdom of American support should be unwelcome in polite society.

These moves might have been effective in the past, but not so much anymore. Instead of theological or shame-based approaches, friends of Israel must frame their arguments in terms of America’s national interest. They should candidly explain the strategic logic of continued warfare and sketch out the desired endgame. Americans are generous allies, but even with our closest friends, we need a clear sense of why and how they are conducting a conflict, and how our support of them will advance our own national interest.

America and Israel share many, if not most, interests. Supporters of Israel should make clear exactly where the lines of the Venn diagram intersect. They should focus on how support for Israel will advance America’s peace, safety, security, and culture. This argument, rather than a theological or shame-based one, is bound to prove more effective in persuading those currently on the fence.

Domestically, the same basic principle applies. Many American Jews are understandably shaken by the rise in anti-Semitism on campuses, sporadic acts of violence against Jews in cities, and increasingly toxic venom toward Jews on the Internet.

Some political leaders have responded by proposing legislation such as the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act, which would effectively create hate-speech provisions in American law. Elsewhere, some advocacy groups, such as the Anti-Defamation League, have worked to tarnish the reputation of critics—sometimes fairly, but often not—and to demand the silencing, censorship, and deplatforming of Americans whom they deem to be the enemies of Jews. On campus, some groups have recommended specific protections and programs for Jews, which, being devoted to a single ethno-religious group, bear a resemblance to DEI programs.

These methods are counterproductive. The answer to anti-Semitism will not be found in hate-speech laws, digital censorship, or DEI programs, but by framing the fight in terms of universal American values. The right way to protect the civil rights of American Jews is to insist on equal protection under the law for all individuals, of whatever racial background, and to demand that the state fulfill its basic duty to protect life, liberty, and property. The right way to beat anti-Semitic conspiracy theories is not to silence those who peddle them but to counter their arguments with persuasive force.

Likewise, instead of demanding DEI-style programs at universities, Jewish students would be better served by a single standard of civil discourse and campus security so that all students are safe from violence. They should ensure that those who violate the basic principles of civil discourse—for example, by blocking students with illegal encampments or vandalizing property—are met with swift and significant consequences. These punishments should not be doled out because they are targeting Jews, in particular, but because they are violating universal principles protecting people of any background—principles that must be upheld to maintain a functioning university.

I’m deeply sympathetic to the cause of American Jews, and to the State of Israel. To the extent that we can make our arguments in terms of America’s national interests and universal American values, we will be successful. Adopting a left-wing frame, emphasizing censorship or “hate speech,” might provide a more immediate sense of security, but it will ultimately fail. The fortunes of American Jews are tied to those of all Americans—and should be presented as such.