Letters: Criticizing Israeli policy isn't antisemitism

"While I don't deny the level of antisemitism in American society, as a Jew who has family in Israel as well as having lost family in the Holocaust, I respectfully offer a different perspective than Daniel Klein, the author of the op-ed. If AB 715 only dealt with anti-Jewish actions and language, I would support it. But conflating opposition to Benjamin Netanyahu's policies and the belief that Palestinians deserve to live in their own state with antisemitism is a reach."

"The Trump administration is seeking to erase interpretive exhibits at our national parks that highlight historical events that might make some white Americans feel bad, such as exhibits on our shameful history of internment of Japanese Americans. Certain Democrats seek a similar sort of historical erasure with AB 715, which weaponizes a notion of Jewish "safety" to stifle any criticism of Israel or Zionism or teaching about the history of Palestine from classrooms, lest their children feel uncomfortable."

"The ADL defines instances of criticism of Israel or Zionist ideology as "antisemitic," grossly inflating their statistics on hatred toward Jews. That AB 715 proponents insist on writing a similar definition into law instead of using the widely accepted Jerusalem Declaration of Antisemitism reveals their true agenda of censorship at a time when Israel is committing a genocide. Our children deserve better than to give Zionist fragility any quarter: no on AB 715."

AB 715 is criticized for conflating opposition to Benjamin Netanyahu’s policies and advocacy for Palestinian statehood with antisemitism. The bill's focus on 'Jewish safety' is portrayed as a pretext to stifle criticism of Israel, Zionism, and teaching about Palestinian history in classrooms. Comparisons are drawn to attempts to erase uncomfortable national histories, such as internment camp exhibits at national parks. The ADL is accused of defining criticism of Israel as antisemitic and inflating hatred statistics. Critics warn that embedding such definitions into law would amount to censorship and would prevent students from encountering challenging ideas.

Read at The Mercury News