Since 2015, Jonathan Greenblatt has served as the director of the Anti-Defamation League, an organization devoted to chronicling and fighting anti-Semitism in American society. Amid a rise in anti-Semitic incidents documented by his group, and with hate crimes in general on the upswing, Greenblatt, a former special assistant to Barack Obama, has been speaking harshly about the tendencies he believes exacerbate anti-Semitism. One of those tendencies is anti-Zionism, which, in a recent speech, he referred to as “an ideology rooted in rage,” comparing it to white supremacy, and adding, “Anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism.” This comes at a time when a vocal minority of young American Jews has called for one secular, democratic state across Israel and the Palestinian territories.
I recently spoke by phone with Greenblatt. During our conversation, which has been edited for length and clarity, we discussed why hate crimes are increasing, the historical roots of anti-Zionism, and whether it’s bigoted to oppose a Jewish state.
What is the mission of the A.D.L. and how do you see it specifically since you took over?
The A.D.L. is interesting. It’s one of the oldest civil-rights organizations in the country. Its mission has not changed since our original charter was written in 1913: to “stop the defamation of the Jewish people and secure justice and fair treatment to all.” It always had this mission, which is both particular and universal. The founders believed in this idea that you might call intersectional, that the Jewish people could only be safe when all people were safe, and only when all minorities were free would the Jewish people truly be free. So the organization has had this integrated approach—particularist and universalist at the same time—for more than a century.
What is the challenge for an organization whose mission is both particularist and universalist? Is there tension there?
I think it is a creative tension or a healthy tension, but there certainly does exist the necessity of finding how those things interoperate. So, for example, in 1952, the A.D.L. wrote an amicus brief in the Brown v. Board of Education case and did so because our leadership in the nineteen-fifties, long before it was fashionable to fight for civil-rights issues, had come out strongly in favor of them, in favor of integration, in favor of desegregation. There were some among our volunteer base who said, Why is the A.D.L. getting involved? That’s not a Jewish issue. But our management in the nineteen-fifties said, Actually, this is our issue. It’s essential to who we are. Then later that same decade the A.D.L. came out in favor of immigration reform and did a lot of work in civil society in support of what became known as the 1965 Immigration Act. There were some among A.D.L. who said, Why is this our issue? The A.D.L. leadership said, No, it actually is our issue.
When I stood up against the proposed Muslim registry, in 2016, or when I went to the border and I was a very loud opponent of the way they were detaining undocumented children and separating them from their parents, some people have said, These things aren’t Jewish issues. Again, I think the way we treat people of different faiths, the way we treat people who immigrate to this country or come as refugees, speaks entirely to who we are. So I think this is exactly what the A.D.L. is all about and always has been.
Your group has released statistics indicating that anti-Semitism is on the rise in America. Why do you think that is?
The F.B.I. tracks hate crimes, meaning felonies and misdemeanors, reported through local law-enforcement agencies, that are crimes against an individual or an institution because of an immutable characteristic like faith, gender, sexual orientation, or national origin. The A.D.L. also tracks anti-Semitic incidents. So let’s say acts of harassment, or bullying—that might not rise to the level of a hate crime. Law enforcement doesn’t care if a kid gets bullied at school, but we do. We collect this information through our twenty-five offices across the country, as well as through lots of individuals and organizations. The F.B.I. 2020 stats—we don’t have 2021 yet—suggested hate crimes are up six per cent over all. We calculated in our most recent audit a thirty-four-per-cent increase in anti-Semitic incidents. That is consistent with an unfortunate pattern that’s emerged since 2016, where instances have been on the rise pretty much every year.
So what’s the cause of that? Political polarization and the coarsening of the public conversation has taken a lid off of politeness and people are now saying things in public spaces they just never did before. People are more vituperative with one another and going after each other. So I think that’s No. 1. I think No. 2 is the penetration of conspiracy theories: making wild claims about individuals such as George Soros or Sheldon Adelson or the Zionists or whatever. Now conspiracy theories are everywhere, and Jews are often at the center of them. No. 3, I think extremists are emboldened in this environment and you see them literally running for school boards, running for Congress. The last thing is that almost seventy-five years since the Holocaust, the collective shame that was there fifteen, twenty, thirty years ago has somewhat receded.
Recently, you a gave a speech where you said, “Against the backdrop of rising anti-Semitic incidents, we will thank the G.O.P. leadership for their statements of support—and demand that they call out the bizarre anti-Semitic conspiracies of their candidates and elected officials. Against this same backdrop, we will applaud Democratic leadership for their statements of support—and demand that they call out the statements of those in their party who knowingly traffic in anti-Zionist tropes and make malicious claims against the Jewish state.” You tagged this rise to 2016, and most of the examples you listed were things I would associate with Republicans and especially Donald Trump. Is the major issue here Donald Trump and the course the G.O.P. is on? And is that course broadly not conducive to Jews thriving?
America has been not only the most vibrant democracy in memory but the open, liberal-minded society that we have here has been the best for the Jews. And historically you can see that the Jews tend to thrive in these open, democratic environments, where people are judged on the content of their character. We tend not to do very well in authoritarian societies. We tend not to do very well in the places where civil rights are diminished or squelched. All these freedoms have a lot to do with Jews prospering.
I worry a great deal about the diminishment of civil rights and the diminishment of these values and privileges that we really cherish. We have politicians or public figures who liken COVID precautions to Nuremberg laws. I think that’s frightening. Holocaust distortionism, which is what I would describe that as, is a slippery slope that tends not to end very well for Jewish people. So, to answer your question, that does worry me a great deal because I do think it’s a slippery slope toward more illiberal policies.
I was asking whether partisanship and extremism more broadly were the problem, or whether it was the G.O.P. becoming a party that goes whole hog for many of these things.
I think when either party starts adopting conspiracies as if they were facts, that worries me. You’ve got people like Marjorie Taylor Greene in the Republican Party who say things that can’t be believed.
I can think of someone even more prominent in the Republican Party who says things you can’t believe.
Yeah, but Marjorie Taylor Greene is someone in elected office today. But, yeah, look, I think former President Trump’s insistence on the “big lie” that he didn’t win the election, and asking candidates to pay fealty to him, is deeply hurtful, and, frankly, that phrase is associated with the Holocaust. So, that’s very worrisome. I also worry about the conspiracism of some on the left, like all the crazy stuff about Israel. That was also in my speech.
In that speech, you said, “To those who still cling to the idea that anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism, let me clarify this for you as clearly as I can—anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism. I will repeat: Anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism.” How are you using the term “anti-Zionism”?
Well, it’s not my term per se. It’s a philosophy of negation. It’s an idea that is based upon negating Zionism, and Zionism is the right of Jewish people to self-determination in their ancestral homeland. This right of self-determination, that many in the anti-Zionist camp want for Palestinians or would want for other peoples, they would deny to Jewish people. Unless you don’t believe in nationalism as a concept and unless you support denying the legitimacy of any national project from France to Ukraine, if you hold the idea that Zionism is the only form of nationalism that’s wrong, that’s discriminating against Jewish people. That’s the anti-Semitism.
I say this as someone who believes in a two-state solution and who’s taken flak for it in some quarters of the more right-wing segments of the Jewish community. I believe in Palestinian nationalism, and I believe in Zionism, and, if you will, Jewish nationalism. These things are not at odds with each other. So in theory there’s some people, whether you’re a pundit or a columnist or a professor, who might think it’s fine to hold this idea, but, in reality, as you can see in our latest data, the conflation of anti-Zionism with other forms of politics is actually quite dangerous to Jewish people of all persuasions.
You said it was O.K. to hold an anti-Zionist idea if you are a pundit or professor. So if I’m a history professor in New York, and I think that everyone in the area covering Israel and the West Bank and Gaza should be part of one democratic state, that’s O.K. to think, in theory, and not be anti-Semitic, but, in practice, people who want that are?
Let me clarify. I can understand that if you’re a pundit or a professor and you’re in the ivory tower, you might think that this is O.K—you can hold those views. But the reality is that in my job at A.D.L. I’m looking at this upsurge of anti-Semitism and trying to understand why it is happening and what’s driving it. Indeed, I find that I don’t have time for that theory. I’m living with the consequences of the practice and the people who propound this idea, Isaac, and contribute to environments in which anti-Semitism is on the rise. That’s what I'm saying.
So if I were a Palestinian in the West Bank and I thought that my situation really stunk, and that we should have one democratic state that covers all this territory—is that in practice anti-Semitic? No one is going to argue with you that many people who are anti-Zionist are also anti-Semitic. But people who would want a democratic state or states in that area, or would even want Israel to be a democratic state without a religious character—is that anti-Semitic?
I get it. I understand what you’re saying. What I’m talking about is not the Palestinian who is displaced from their village in 1948. Not talking about that. I get that as an idea, but, in practice, what I’m dealing with are the students at Rutgers University, who, when they read off the names of Holocaust survivors, or people in their family who died during the Holocaust, their fraternity is pelted with eggs, and students who claim some fidelity to anti-Zionism or Palestinian nationalism harass them. That’s a problem for me. And, again, I’m not debating or questioning the authenticity of an Indigenous Palestinian person who’s living in the West Bank who feels impinged upon by the Israeli state. By the way, my wife’s family was displaced from Iran. My grandfather’s family was all slaughtered in the Holocaust, but my grandfather didn’t subscribe to and I don’t subscribe to the idea that the German state needs to be dismantled and destroyed and that German people don’t have a right to self-identity.
I understand the answer you’re giving. But in the speech you compared anti-Zionism to white supremacy very clearly, so—
Correct, I did. Let’s say a white person said to me, “My plant got closed. These immigrants came in and took my job, and so, therefore, I don’t know, immigrants shouldn’t have any rights, immigrants don’t just deserve the same rights as we do.” I would feel the same way if someone said, “You know what, these Jews came and took my home, they don’t have any rights.” It’s a similar phenomenon.
It seems like you’re drawing a lot of distinctions in this conversation and defining things not as broadly as you did in the speech. You are saying certain forms of anti-Zionism are anti-Semitic, or you’re feeling that anti-Zionism, broadly speaking, can lead to anti-Semitism, which seems a little different than comparing anti-Zionism directly with white supremacy. There’s no professor espousing white supremacy in the ivory tower that you are O.K. with. That’s what I’m trying to draw out.
O.K., I understand. So let me make sure that I’m crystal clear with you. If you are a person in the West Bank, a Palestinian, an Indigenous Palestinian person, I understand why you don’t like the Israeli state, but if your goal is to destroy it, I think that’s a problem.
Is creating a secular state destroying it? A state for Jewish people, but not a Jewish state, if that distinction makes sense.
Ask my grandfather or ask my wife. These kinds of countries exist in the Middle East. I don’t think Syria would be a great outcome for anybody. I don’t think Yemen would be a great outcome for anybody. I don’t think the state of Lebanon would be a great outcome for anybody. I don’t. So, to answer your question, do I think a secular non-Jewish state would work? No, I don't think so.
Right. I think people would say the West Bank isn’t working, but—
Look, I think you’re correct, I think the West Bank is a suboptimal situation.
Here, you are saying, I don't think a one-state solution can work, and you may be right. But I don’t know that people who preach it are anti-Semitic.
There are a lot of people who get involved in these movements, Isaac. There are Jewish people involved in the [Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions] campaign. I don’t think they’re all self-hating Jews. I think many of them think this is a way for us to be supportive of human-rights issues. However, the architects of the campaign don’t believe in Zionism and the right of Jewish people to a homeland of their own.
There are a lot of young Jewish people in America who don’t consider themselves Zionists, and there are also Jews in Israel, religious Jews, who do not consider themselves Zionists. So anti-Zionism is very multifaceted.
People who try to compare the Satmar Jews to members of Hamas—I think that’s a farce. I mean, give me a break. I could probably find Palestinians who don’t believe in a Palestinian state.
I wasn’t equating anyone. Many Jews in America have been saying something for a long time, which is do not treat us as Israelis. Do not commit hate crimes against Jews in America because you don’t like the policies of the Israeli state. Do not accuse us of having dual loyalty and looking out for the interests of Israel. Is there any danger in equating anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism so strongly that in some ways it’s doing the work of the people who want to equate those two things: Jews as a whole with Israel and Zionism?
I wish I didn’t have to have this conversation with you or with anyone.
O.K.
Anti-Zionism is a new hue of a very old color. Jews have been delegitimized for centuries. For thousands of years. Judaism isn’t a real religion. The Jews aren’t a real people. The Jews don’t really deserve rights. We have heard this throughout time. Today, the subject of derision is the Jewish state, not the Jewish people. But it is an old practice. It's like old wine in a new bottle.
To answer your question, we have fought against dual loyalty, against that canard. There’s nothing wrong with having a passion for your homeland. Italian Americans have that, Irish Americans have that, Chinese American people have that. There’s nothing wrong with having a strong identification, but Zionism, a desire to go back to Jerusalem, the longing for Zion, isn’t something that David Ben-Gurion came up with. It isn’t something that Theodor Herzl came up with. It has been embedded in the faith and the traditions of Judaism for thousands of years. You can’t open a Torah on a Saturday morning for your daily prayer, you can’t go through a holiday, without seeing these references.
So you’re right, there are maybe more young Jewish people today who identify as progressive and think anti-Zionism is part of their progressive identity, but if you peel back the layers in anti-Zionism, it is a historic form of delegitimization targeting Jews. It may have a different veneer today, a different façade, but it’s the same architecture of intolerance that’s been there for centuries.
But you would also agree that the debate over Zionism has not necessarily had this “anti-Semitic veneer” for centuries, right? There are a lot of Jews who were anti-Zionists before—
Give me a—Isaac. Sure, there were Jews who were worried that it would create more anti-Semitism directed against them in America. When you ask me these questions, it suggests to me that you’re coming at this from a particular editorial perspective. To compare the fear that existed in the Jewish community in the nineteen-thirties—that wasn’t anti-Zionism in the way that we have it today. The Jewish people in America or in Europe who were concerned about the prospect of creating a state of their own were terrified of the literal annihilation of their people that was taking place around them. Don’t liken the American Jewish leaders from the nineteen-thirties who had deep questions about what Zionism would mean to the people writing the charter for Hamas today.
That’s not what I’m doing. I was trying to make the point that I thought that Zionism and anti-Zionism as ideas come in many forms. Look, we know that the Balfour Declaration, which was one of the bases of the modern state of Israel, was written by Arthur Balfour, who had views about Jews and other people that we might not like—
You’re missing something here. People not being supportive of the creation of the political state of Israel and its right to exist—that is anti-Zionism with a big, fat capital “A.” People who are unsure about it, like in the nineteen-thirties—that isn’t anti-Zionism. That’s something different. That wasn’t a deep-seated, visceral opposition to the ability of Jews to have the same rights they want for other people. Someone who says, “I don’t think all the jobs should go away, and we need a much different industrial policy”—that isn’t white supremacy.
Is anyone saying it’s white supremacy? What am I missing here?
Well, I’m drawing an analogy.
O.K.
The person who feels concerned about immigrants or concerned about plant closures, that isn’t white supremacy, and we shouldn’t call it that. The person who, in the nineteen-thirties, said, I’m concerned about this Herzlian project, that person was not anti-Zionist like what we have today. We need to be able to distinguish between the two, but radical people who promote an ideology in which the fundamental tenet is denying Jews the same rights as others, that’s dangerous and it is combustible. Period.
In your speech, you very clearly compared anti-Zionism, without these distinctions, to white supremacy. What about people who are worried that the Israeli state has a religious character to it, in the way it deals with Jews versus non-Jews—where the objection is to a religious state?
I don’t see a movement to disassemble Pakistan. I don’t see that.
Pakistan was created at basically the exact same time as Israel. It is a state that has a religious character to it, and one can easily believe that it was a mistake to create, but now it has a right to exist. Thinking its religious character is not O.K., and that it is not O.K. for the state to treat small minorities of Christians and Hindus any differently than Muslims—I don’t think that would make you anti-Pakistan or anti-Muslim in some way. One could even argue against religious states for the same reasons that you brought out at the very beginning of this interview—that there’s not something universalist about them.
I got a news bulletin not too long before we talked that the government of Israel just swore in the first Muslim Supreme Court justice at the highest court of the land. For a country with a quote-unquote religious character, with a Jewish star on the flag, it is remarkable to me that they have a ruling government, a coalition that is more diverse politically and religiously than the U.S. government today. I don’t know how many Muslim members we have in our Cabinet. I don’t know how many Muslim parties. We live in a world in which there are dozens of Muslim states. Most of them—I shouldn’t say most of them, because I don’t know this for certain, but a plurality of them—make references to Islam or Islamic iconography on their flags or in their constitution. It’s remarkable to me that we don’t have a push to de-Islamicize all these countries.
There was a giant push to say to the Muslim world after 9/11 that they needed to change how religious their societies were because they were leading to terrorism and violence. People have certainly lectured the Muslim world on issues within their own societies. Anyway, I hear the point you’re making about the Muslim Supreme Court justice. And Pakistan has had a female Prime Minister. That doesn’t tell us everything about gender dynamics in Pakistan.
Wait a second. That’s a whole different conversation. I used that example in the context of your comments about universality and how different religions are treated in Israel, which we were narrowly talking about a moment ago. At the end of the day, Israel is a country unto its own. To your point about the dual-loyalty thing, I don’t think it’s right when Jews are held to a different standard, and I don’t think it’s right when Muslims are held to a different standard. I don’t think it’s right when people are categorized and litmus tests are administered based on their religion or their national origin. I don’t agree with that. I’ve stood up against it when it’s been done to Chinese people and I’ve stood up against it when it’s done to Muslim people and I’ll stand up against it when it’s done to Jewish people.
There is much debate in American society now over whether racial or religious groups or people within those groups should be able to define what constitutes bigotry against them. I’m curious how you think through whether anti-Semitism is something that Jews themselves get to define or whether it’s more something that society has to negotiate together.
It’s a complicated question, but I think it’s fair to say that the people from different marginalized groups who’ve been struggling with that marginalization for some time have the right to say what feels right and what doesn’t feel right. I’m not a trans person. I don’t think it’s for me to define what is transphobic or not. A trans person should do that. I don’t think it’s for me to define what’s an indication of anti-Muslim bias or not. I think it’s for the Muslim person to tell me.
That’s an interesting answer. With a situation like Israel, some Jews think that certain resolutions to the conflict would be anti-Semitic, and some Muslims think the current situation or other resolutions are anti-Muslim. So you have the problem of how to figure that out.
These things are complicated. I think as often is the case with issues of identity, they go to how we define ourselves. They don’t always lend themselves to pat answers and different people can perceive things differently.
