The term “anti-Israel” is used frequently by letter writers and occasionally by columnists describing politicians, including Kamala Harris and Joe Biden. I believe this usage is inappropriate, inflammatory and untruthful. The term reflects an advocacy that Israel as a Jewish state should not exist. Hence, “anti-Israel.” Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, “from the river to the sea” demonstrators and others are anti-Israel. They want no Jewish state to exist.
When politicians espouse policies that one may disagree with, that is not “anti-Israel.” Is the advocacy of a two-state solution anti-Israel? Is an advocacy for getting the hostages home yet allowing Hamas to remain in charge of Gaza anti-Israel? There can be warranted criticism of such policies; one can believe that such policies will lead to the destruction of Israel but that is an opinion, not a position held by those who suggest such policies. Those advocates, perhaps misguided, are not and should not be termed “anti-Israel.”
(Barack Obama has long been called and vilified as being “anti-Israel.” Many disagreed with Obama’s policies toward Israel during his terms in office but can he be described as “anti-Israel,” that Israel should not exist as a Jewish state? In 2016, the last year of his presidency, he issued a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Israel that was the largest pledge of military assistance in U.S. history. The years covered were FY2019–FY 2028 and the funding was for $3.8 billion per year. Israel has been benefiting from this since 2019 and will continue benefiting through 2028.)
There needs to be a moderation in the inflammatory usage of the descriptive term along with a recognition that if policies are proposed that the letter writer or correspondent does not agree with, that is insufficient cause for the descriptor “anti-Israel.”
