From 2013 to 2017, I served as a White House appointee to the US Commission on International Religious Freedom. Annually, we issued reports identifying countries that violated their citizens’ and residents’ ability to freely practise their faiths and recommendations for the US government to bring them into compliance.
Early on I noted deep resistance to examining Israel by some commissioners. The commission wanted to publish an op-ed expressing concern that “in the land where Jesus was born, Christians feared celebrating Christmas”, citing a few Arab countries (weirdly including Lebanon and Syria).
When I asked about Palestinian Christians, the response was a near-hysterical rejection. A year later, the Roman Catholic Patriarch of Jerusalem sought the commission’s support for a few requests of Israeli authorities (e.g., visas for priests and unimpeded passage for Christians between Israel and the West Bank at Christmas and Easter).
Two of my colleagues rejected his appeal and insisted his priority be demanding Hamas disarm.
Sensing an uphill battle, before proposing that the commission investigate Israel, I asked a team of attorneys to prepare a brief on Israel’s repressive actions impacting Palestinian Christians and Muslims and Israeli non-Orthodox Jews. The study was modelled on the commission’s reviews of Turkey in Cyprus and Russia in Crimea, which had been criticised in previous reports.
When I and a Jewish fellow commissioner (concerned with the treatment of non-Orthodox Jews in Israel) submitted the report, we met a firestorm of abuse. Two commissioners charged that I was antisemitic for “singling Israel out for criticism”. This accusation is a hallmark of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism that equates criticism of Israel with antisemitism, and is used to silence Israel’s critics.
I reminded them that I had voted with them every year to criticise the practices of two dozen countries. It wasn’t me who was singling Israel out for criticism. They were singling Israel out as the one country that couldn’t be criticised.
This is the “Israel exception”. Israel can violate religious freedom, international law, humanitarian law, US laws regarding using aid to violate human rights and civilians’ lives and never be criticised. Those who do are deemed antisemites.
This insidious situation has allowed Israel to operate with impunity. It’s taken a toll on Palestinians, Lebanese, Syrians, and others – and is now being weaponised in the US, putting at risk our basic freedoms.
The IHRA definition was formally adopted by the first Trump administration. A dozen states also legislated its use. After several failed efforts, this year it may well pass Congress.
Most concerning is the current Trump administration’s weaponisation of the IHRA definition to threaten universities into taking measures violating academic freedom and campus free speech, the firing of faculty members, cancelling of courses and gutting of Middle East Studies departments. The departments of State and Homeland Security are using it to cancel visas and green cards, resulting in deportations or cancelling of visas for hundreds of pro-Palestinian advocates. The individuals being deported, university programmes being cancelled and students being threatened with expulsion are denounced for antisemitism that is creating a hostile environment for Jews on campuses. On examination, however, their “crimes” are nothing more than criticising Israel or supporting Palestinians.
The silence of too many liberals in Congress and academia who fearfully allow this to continue is disturbing. They’ve permitted the “Israel exception” to morph into the “Palestine exception”. Any state (even our own) can be criticised. But not Israel. Victims of human rights violations (even genocide) must be supported. But not Palestinians.
Many in my community feel vulnerable, as they witness Israel acting with impunity, devastating Lebanon and Syria, accelerating its genocide in Gaza and repression and ethnic cleansing in the West Bank.
Many are afraid to speak out or engage in political protest. Even citizens are concerned about travel – their treatment on re-entry to the US. Visa holders worry they won’t be allowed to return.
The “Israel/Palestine exception” distorts our foreign policy, erodes our commitment to international law and compromises our rights to free speech, assembly and to petition our government. We are witnessing its threats to academic freedom and the very idea of the university.
What’s heartening is the broad and diverse coalition rising up to meet this challenge to our rights and our peoples. Arab Americans, civil and human rights organisations, ethnic and faith-based groups, and students and professors are coming together to demand an end to the “Israel/Palestine exception”.
&uuid=(email))