Too often, public understanding of Israel is shaped by claims that do not withstand scrutiny, especially when complex realities are reduced to stark moral claims. Aaron Regunberg’s essay, “American Jewish organizations are making a dangerous mistake” (Boston Globe, March 18), is a case in point. His entire thesis rests on a false premise and is riddled with inaccuracies.
He asserts that mainstream Jewish organizations equate criticism of Israel with antisemitism. In fact, the opposite is true. Most major Jewish organizations have repeatedly emphasized that criticism of Israeli policies, politics, and leaders is entirely legitimate, reflecting the wide diversity of views within the Jewish community itself. The widely cited, but much maligned, International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism, endorsed by many of these organizations, explicitly states that “criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.”
Regunberg also faults these organizations for failing to condemn what he describes as “a live-streamed genocide be[ing] committed by the Jewish state,” and suggests that this failure contributes to rising antisemitism. This argument is mistaken on two levels.
First, his conclusion that Israel’s defensive war in Gaza, while causing much death and destruction, is genocide, is belied by the facts. Under international law, genocide requires the “intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.” While criticism of Israel’s military and other policies is legitimate (and not antisemitic), nothing it has done evinces an intent to destroy the Palestinian or Gazan people. Conflating the tragedy of war with the crime of genocide risks reducing the distinction to meaninglessness.
Second, he effectively blames the victim—Jews, through organizations representing the mainstream community—for rising antisemitism, much of it fueled by reckless charges of genocide and other distortions, rather than addressing the role of those who promote extreme or misleading narratives. Suggesting that Jewish institutions are to blame for antisemitism directed at Jews inverts the problem rather than confronting it.
Regunberg goes further, linking the rise of extremist figures such as Nick Fuentes to what he claims is a tendency among Jewish organizations to label criticism of Israel as antisemitic, which he argues helps explain (though not justify) the conflation of Israel and Jews by figures like Fuentes and his followers. His example: the ADL criticizing Governor Gavin Newsom’s recent description of Israel as “sort of an apartheid state.” But the ADL does not say, nor has it ever said, that criticism of Israel is antisemitic. Rather, it has warned that certain characterizations—such as labeling Israel an “apartheid state” or accusing it of “genocide” —are inflammatory, factually inaccurate, and can contribute to efforts to delegitimize Israel and inflame hostility toward Jews.
As to the charge of apartheid, Regunberg references that Jews born in the West Bank have full rights in Israel, while Palestinians do not, and “[t]hat’s apartheid.” While the facts cited are accurate, the conclusion is not, overlooking critical context. First, Palestinians in the West Bank are not citizens of Israel; the territory’s status has been the subject of decades of dispute, negotiation, and conflict. Reducing this complex and unresolved situation to a single label obscures more than it clarifies. Second, Arab citizens of Israel, who comprise approximately 20% of Israel’s population, have full rights, with representation in the Knesset (Israel’s parliament), judiciary (including the Supreme Court), and all aspects of Israeli society. That’s not apartheid.
Regunberg concludes that “[t]ying the honor and reputation of our people to the rogue government of an ethnostate” is making American Jews—and his sons—more vulnerable to antisemitism. But arguments that oversimplify a deeply complex conflict and mischaracterize mainstream Jewish institutions do a disservice to his sons and the broader Jewish community. They risk feeding the very climate of hostility they purport to resist, deepening misunderstanding rather than reducing it. At a time when antisemitism is on the rise, greater precision, nuance, and responsibility in public discourse are not only warranted—they are essential.
Mel Shuman is a lawyer based in Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts.
