It’s painful when someone we are a fan of disappoints us in some way. Of course we know that most relationships will include such moments but, even if it is somewhat expected, it can still sting.
Last week the comedian John Oliver devoted a segment of his HBO show to the Israel-Palestine conflict. He acknowledged at the start that conversations about the Middle East are fraught. As he put it, “If I may quote the riskiest thing you can say on a first date: ‘Let’s talk about Israel!’”
The Israel-Palestine conflict is indeed extremely complicated, which is why so much of what has been said and posted online over the last few weeks is riddled with inaccuracies. Oliver admits that it is confusing and difficult, and acknowledges that he cannot hope to recap such a rich and complex history in a ten-minute segment.
But then he attempts to do just that—and joke about it. In doing so, he distorts the most recent conflict. His main point seems to be that because Israel is the more powerful player with a much more sophisticated military, it is by definition the aggressor even though it is objectively true that Hamas fired rockets at Israel first in this most recent conflict, and not the other way around.
He describes Israel’s policies in the West Bank (which are worthy of criticism in many ways to be sure) as “apartheid,” which is absurd—it’s an insult to Israel and undermines the real struggles of those who have fought for equality in South Africa. One need only look to the most recent Israeli election to understand how deeply flawed such an analogy is. Arab Israelis make up twenty percent of Israeli citizenship, they enjoy full rights and protections under the law, and at this moment an Arab Islamist political party, Ra’am, is poised to be part of the new government.
One need only look to the most recent Israeli election to understand how deeply flawed such an analogy is.
He also describes Israeli military actions in Gaza as “war crimes” because civilians, including children, were killed (he actually uses the word “murder”). While acknowledging that Hamas rockets also killed civilians in Israel, he claims that because the Israeli military is so much more sophisticated, the blame should fall squarely on them. The fact that one’s opponent is weaker does not give him the moral high ground. Given its military superiority, the IDF, if it wanted to, could have inflicted much more carnage. That it didn’t in the face of Hamas’s indiscriminate bombing of civilian targets is a testament to Israel’s restraint.
Natan Sharansky, human rights activist and “refusenik” in the former Soviet Union (in addition to serving as member of the Knesset), knows a thing or two about antisemitism firsthand. He formulated a test to help us distinguish between legitimate criticism of Israel and antisemitism. He calls it the “3D test.”
The first “D” is demonization. When Israeli policies are compared to the Holocaust or when members of the Israeli military are labeled war criminals for responding as strategically as possible to thousands of missiles launched at a civilian population, critique becomes demonization: Israel is not simply flawed, it is evil incarnate.
The second “D” is double standards. When Israel is singled out for human rights abuses by the UN while the egregious abuses of the Hamas regime are largely ignored or when criticism is directed solely at Israel while the actions of countries known to engage in wide scale human rights abuses—like Iran, China, or Syria, for example—are given a pass, the double standard is apparent.
The third “D” is delegitimization, calling into question Israel’s very right to exist.
Oliver clearly violates two of Sharansky’s “D”s. The segment crosses over from legitimate criticism of Israel and the policies and actions of its government to antisemitism. His screed ends with the most painful and unfair punch, calling for an end to America’s long-held policy of being an unwavering friend to Israel. He concludes by saying: “At the end of the day I would hope that a real friend would tell me when I’m being an [expletive] and definitely when I’m committing a [expletive] war crime.”
Oliver clearly violates two of Sharansky’s “D”s. The segment crosses over from legitimate criticism of Israel and the policies and actions of its government to antisemitism.
Twenty-five hundred years ago the prophet Zecharia implored us to speak the truth to one another— דַּבְּר֤וּ אֱמֶת֙ אִ֣ישׁ אֶת־רֵעֵ֔הוּ —so that there might be shalom, peace, within our gates.
Whether it’s on the Facebook page of a friend or a TV segment of someone of whom we’ve been a fan, it’s our job to call out harmful rhetoric for what it is. It’s our job—in the face of lies and distortions—to speak the truth.
Rabbi Yoshi Zweiback is the senior rabbi at Stephen Wise Temple and Schools.
John Oliver Fails Natan Sharansky’s “3D Test”
Rabbi Yoshi Zweiback
It’s painful when someone we are a fan of disappoints us in some way. Of course we know that most relationships will include such moments but, even if it is somewhat expected, it can still sting.
Last week the comedian John Oliver devoted a segment of his HBO show to the Israel-Palestine conflict. He acknowledged at the start that conversations about the Middle East are fraught. As he put it, “If I may quote the riskiest thing you can say on a first date: ‘Let’s talk about Israel!’”
The Israel-Palestine conflict is indeed extremely complicated, which is why so much of what has been said and posted online over the last few weeks is riddled with inaccuracies. Oliver admits that it is confusing and difficult, and acknowledges that he cannot hope to recap such a rich and complex history in a ten-minute segment.
But then he attempts to do just that—and joke about it. In doing so, he distorts the most recent conflict. His main point seems to be that because Israel is the more powerful player with a much more sophisticated military, it is by definition the aggressor even though it is objectively true that Hamas fired rockets at Israel first in this most recent conflict, and not the other way around.
He describes Israel’s policies in the West Bank (which are worthy of criticism in many ways to be sure) as “apartheid,” which is absurd—it’s an insult to Israel and undermines the real struggles of those who have fought for equality in South Africa. One need only look to the most recent Israeli election to understand how deeply flawed such an analogy is. Arab Israelis make up twenty percent of Israeli citizenship, they enjoy full rights and protections under the law, and at this moment an Arab Islamist political party, Ra’am, is poised to be part of the new government.
He also describes Israeli military actions in Gaza as “war crimes” because civilians, including children, were killed (he actually uses the word “murder”). While acknowledging that Hamas rockets also killed civilians in Israel, he claims that because the Israeli military is so much more sophisticated, the blame should fall squarely on them. The fact that one’s opponent is weaker does not give him the moral high ground. Given its military superiority, the IDF, if it wanted to, could have inflicted much more carnage. That it didn’t in the face of Hamas’s indiscriminate bombing of civilian targets is a testament to Israel’s restraint.
Natan Sharansky, human rights activist and “refusenik” in the former Soviet Union (in addition to serving as member of the Knesset), knows a thing or two about antisemitism firsthand. He formulated a test to help us distinguish between legitimate criticism of Israel and antisemitism. He calls it the “3D test.”
The first “D” is demonization. When Israeli policies are compared to the Holocaust or when members of the Israeli military are labeled war criminals for responding as strategically as possible to thousands of missiles launched at a civilian population, critique becomes demonization: Israel is not simply flawed, it is evil incarnate.
The second “D” is double standards. When Israel is singled out for human rights abuses by the UN while the egregious abuses of the Hamas regime are largely ignored or when criticism is directed solely at Israel while the actions of countries known to engage in wide scale human rights abuses—like Iran, China, or Syria, for example—are given a pass, the double standard is apparent.
The third “D” is delegitimization, calling into question Israel’s very right to exist.
Oliver clearly violates two of Sharansky’s “D”s. The segment crosses over from legitimate criticism of Israel and the policies and actions of its government to antisemitism. His screed ends with the most painful and unfair punch, calling for an end to America’s long-held policy of being an unwavering friend to Israel. He concludes by saying: “At the end of the day I would hope that a real friend would tell me when I’m being an [expletive] and definitely when I’m committing a [expletive] war crime.”
Twenty-five hundred years ago the prophet Zecharia implored us to speak the truth to one another— דַּבְּר֤וּ אֱמֶת֙ אִ֣ישׁ אֶת־רֵעֵ֔הוּ —so that there might be shalom, peace, within our gates.
Whether it’s on the Facebook page of a friend or a TV segment of someone of whom we’ve been a fan, it’s our job to call out harmful rhetoric for what it is. It’s our job—in the face of lies and distortions—to speak the truth.
Rabbi Yoshi Zweiback is the senior rabbi at Stephen Wise Temple and Schools.
Did you enjoy this article?
You'll love our roundtable.
Editor's Picks
Israel and the Internet Wars – A Professional Social Media Review
The Invisible Student: A Tale of Homelessness at UCLA and USC
What Ever Happened to the LA Times?
Who Are the Jews On Joe Biden’s Cabinet?
You’re Not a Bad Jewish Mom If Your Kid Wants Santa Claus to Come to Your House
No Labels: The Group Fighting for the Political Center
Latest Articles
NCSY Welcomes 400 Proudly Jewish Student Leaders to the JSU President’s Conference
Table for Five: Toldot
Genocide and International Relations
Heading Toward Bipartisan Opposition?
A Concrete Case for Hope
AIPAC Isn’t the Problem. It’s Part of the Solution.
After the Haredi Public’s Defeat: Change Must Come from Outside
Everyone is entitled to choose how to live, but the state is not obliged to finance every choice. Those who do not complete secondary education, do not serve in the military, and do not work should not receive state support to maintain that way of life.
The Last Signer
Carroll, having helped swing Maryland toward independence, was elected to Congress on July 4, and signed the Declaration in August, the only Catholic among the signers and the only one to add his estate to his name.
The 24-Hour Window That Changed the U.S.–Israel Relationship
Trump said Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had agreed to the change and argued that Israel no longer needed the funding.
Can’t Jews Take a Break From Being Liberals to Worry About Israel?
It is easy to be proudly Jewish when our identity is celebrated. It is harder when Jewish solidarity demands disagreeing with one’s friends or political party.
Torah Portion: Toldot
The parsha begins with a direct statement: “This is the story of Isaac, son of Abraham.”
With Jews of Color Initiative Grant, Shades of Belonging Expanding Programming for JoC Adoptees
The organization will be bringing together eight Jewish adoptees of color to be in community over a seven-month period.
Faith and the Power of Pretend
Rabbi Kushner provides a path for elevating our humanity, appreciating the wisdom of Jewish tradition and practice, and experiencing the divinity residing within all humans, even those who do not yet acknowledge God’s presence.
The Hero Behind the Hero: Eli Beer Wants the World to Know Nadia Cohen
When Eli Beer ecently learned that Eli Cohen’s widow, Nadia, was still alive at 91, he knew he wanted her to be the guest of honor at United Hatzalah’s annual gala in Los Angeles.
Who Are the Jewish Winners in the 2026 Elections?
The results will bring the number of Jewish governors to seven in January 2027. The incoming U.S. Senate will have 10 Jewish members, including nine Democrats and one independent.
Congratulations – and Candor – for L.A.’s Next Mayor
Raman has called BDS a legitimate form of protest, while her campaign says a boycott of Israel will not be part of her agenda as mayor. I take her at her word, and I will hold her to it.
The Background Has Been Painted: Kristallnacht, 88 Years On
What’s most troubling is that, much like what happened in Germany on that horrible night, the participants in the bike ride were normal people, your friends and neighbors.
When Touched by Evil
We might vow to distance ourselves from those who do evil, but when it involves friends and family, it can be excruciating to do so.
The F-Bomb
The term “f-bomb” has become obsolete. The one-time shocker is so common that it’s more of an f-firecracker.
The Reunion
When I reunite with my parents, I imagine it will go something like this.
Declaring Our Independence
If neither of the nation’s two dominant political parties is willing to commit to us, then we are under no obligation to commit to them.
Our New Mayor Has a Genocide Problem
If Nithya Raman is serious about making Jews feel safe, it’s time for her to set an example and correct the lie of the century. Don’t just do it for the Jews. Do it for the truth.
They Blamed the Jews for Eggs. Then They Won.
Cenk Uygur’s grocery-aisle libel cost his candidate nothing. Then Washington ended the aid, and the grievance didn’t move an inch.
Rabbi Stan Levy, 1941-2026
His work was to lift-up those in need, support the downtrodden and, particularly, respond with a compassionate heart to the many Holocaust Survivors who lived in the Fairfax District.
Broken Glass and the Banality of Blueberries
“Here There Are Blueberries” is a fascinating autopsy into the morality of indifference.
One Book, Two Sisters, and the Fight to Keep the Holocaust Real
While popular culture often praises “The Boy in the Striped Pajamas” as a touching fable, historians have long condemned it as a dangerous fabrication.
More news and opinions than at a Shabbat dinner, right in your inbox.