In the fight against antisemitism, we often are faced with a binary. “Is this or is this not antisemitic?” This black and white test of hatred has split our community and turned our quest for safety and belonging into a battle between sides instead of a collective struggle. It’s an easy binary. It’s also a false one.

This binary impacts one type of issue in particular: the edge case. There are times when an advocate or politician or commentator will do or say something that isn’t quite antisemitic. It’s couched in enough protective language that it doesn’t satisfy any definition of antisemitism, but it gives Jews pause. Supporters of that person’s end goals will say “that’s not antisemitic and how dare you claim it is?” Opponents of that person’s end goals will say “that’s clearly antisemitic and how dare you claim it isn’t?” And the polarization gets wider. Meanwhile, the actor can say “this technically isn’t antisemitic” and be correct. But something can not be antisemitic in a vacuum and still risk feeding antisemitism.

Take for example the Brooklyn coffee shop that retroactively denied service to Dan Goldman, claiming that they did not want business from someone that takes money from AIPAC or otherwise supports Israel. Was it antisemitic to deny a Jewish congressman service because of his support for Israel and financial support from AIPAC? Maybe. Maybe not. Some might feel that taking financial support to back Israel........

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)