While serving as a U.S. Public Delegate to the United Nations during my tenure in the Biden Administration, I contributed to forming our nation’s inaugural National Strategy to Combat Antisemitism. Currently, as global indignation concerning the in is fully warranted, this initiative has gained heightened importance.

Amidst this essential indignation, a distinct and ongoing unwillingness to acknowledge Jewish concerns is resurfacing.

Numerous young American Jews nationwide report that part of this diminishing credibility arises from individuals who insist , thus weakening the term’s impact. More perilously, some exploit the ‘fight against antisemitism’ for political advantage, treating Jews as tools while empowering entities intent on causing us harm.

Such trends have politicized and diminished the substance of this ancient prejudice. Yet, as these young individuals would readily confirm, this does not imply the threat is not genuine.

Antisemitism in America

The persistent misconception that Jews are impervious to targeting is clashing with a harsh new truth. 

For the first time ever, most American Jews—a sentiment echoed by many young people I encountered—are altering their routines , a concern now confirmed by the FBI, which recently reported the highest incidence of anti-Jewish hate crimes in the nation’s history. Though Jews constitute only 2% of the population, they are subjected to almost 70% of all religion-motivated hate crimes. The issue is no longer the existence of a crisis, but rather our subsequent actions.

I recognize that for certain individuals, any discourse on antisemitism is perceived as an effort to suppress valid critiques of the Israeli government or its policies. However, this legitimate concern must not be exploited as a defense mechanism to disregard genuine and escalating dangers. Having consistently striven to distinguish criticism of Israeli policies from antisemitic conduct, I contend that the boundary is breached when Jewish identity is conflated with a state’s actions, or when collective accountability is sought for a government’s choices. Demanding that Jews globally account for Israel’s policies amounts to singling them out based on their religious belief. This is unequivocally discrimination.

A sharp rise in anti-Israel discourse has coincided with a similar surge in antisemitic violence.

Both within America and globally, Jews who have no association with the Israeli government’s activities are facing harassment, threats, and even at the hands of those asserting solidarity with the Palestinian populace.

An erosion of empathy

To be explicit: the situation unfolding in Gaza constitutes a horrific humanitarian disaster.

Given hospitals struggling with severely undernourished children and more than Palestinians tragically killed merely seeking sustenance, global outrage is not just warranted; it is a moral imperative. And while individuals are entitled to express such indignation via peaceful demonstrations, we must honestly recognize the distinction between protest and menace, resistance and injury.

History offers a stark lesson: intense periods of conflict, when global sentiment is saturated with anger and recrimination, are precisely when antisemitism flourishes most. It prospers amid disorder and exploits valid complaints, perverting them into focused animosity. Disregarding it now—or postponing it for a ‘more convenient moment’—indicates not concentration, but a lack of foresight.

When numerous Jewish individuals articulate that particular slogans—such as “Globalize the intifada” or “There is only one solution: Intifada revolution”—trigger distress, even among those of us most aligned with progressive and justice-driven ideals, it stems not from opposition to Palestinian freedom, justice, or liberation. Rather, it is because we bear the weight of memory.

Specifically, “intifada” is profoundly linked to two violent periods in Jewish history, characterized by suicide attacks, widespread shootings, and the assassination of Israeli non-combatants. Uttering this phrase today as if it were merely a conceptual plea for resistance disregards the direct experiences of those who recall its repercussions.

Language does more than just convey intent—it bears the burden of its past application, of shared trauma, of veiled threats. It creates an effect. Therefore, when a community communicates that a certain phrase induces existential dread, asserting, “I didn’t intend it that way,” is insufficient.

Such a response goes beyond a mere lack of sensitivity—it represents a failure of solidarity. This is often where many genuinely well-intentioned individuals err. They perceive empathy as either conditional or a zero-sum game. They encounter Jewish suffering and initially question its political alignment, analyzing slogans rather than heeding those impacted.

This causes distress to Jews. More significantly, however, it fragments alliances, alienating individuals who also seek collective justice—and propelling them towards those who cunningly (and impulsively) offer the illusion of protection.

Empathy does not demand universal agreement on all matters. It necessitates active listening, understanding, and recognizing distress. To denounce these slogans is not an advocacy for censorship or legal prohibition. It is a declaration: this inflicts pain upon individuals. And if our aim is genuinely to construct a more compassionate, equitable, and tranquil world, then this concern merits our attention.

A path toward solidarity

As Jewish people, we bear the duty to exemplify this conduct. Our heritage instructs us to abstain from ona’at devarim—inflicting damage through speech—implying that even inadvertent remarks causing emotional anguish constitute an offense. Beyond simply avoiding ill will, we are urged to assume accountability for the consequences of our language.

This moral requirement for conscientious communication is profoundly linked to a historical dedication to social justice spanning centuries. Shaped by a background of banishment and oppression, Jewish Americans have consistently advocated for inherent dignity and parity. From marching hand-in-hand with to campaigning for and , this lasting tradition of collaboration renders the current quiet—or, worse, disregard—from certain segments deeply distressing. This juncture urgently demands a renewed commitment to these common objectives, cultivating connections with all who pursue peace and inherent worth.

Contemporary public dialogue necessitates ethical lucidity and reinvigorated reciprocal esteem. Malicious entities anticipate our fragmentation—our succumbing to the vanity of minor distinctions, our turning against allies instead of confronting our oppressors. However, we must deny them that gratification.

Instead, let us possess the courage to state: I was unaware of the significance those words held for you. I am now informed. And I will refrain from using them subsequently. This is not fragility. It is fortitude. This exemplifies true solidarity. And I am convinced it is achievable.