Why a Proposed Billboard That Says “God Curses Those Who Curse the Jews” Is Raising Eyebrows — and Why It Deserves Serious Consideration

Antisemitism today is not merely resurging. It is mutating.

It is increasingly disseminated through charismatic social media influencers who blend grievance, conspiracy, and selective religious rhetoric into emotionally charged narratives that feel righteous to their followers. These voices rarely present themselves as hatemongers. They present themselves as truth-tellers, spiritual guides, and defenders of divine order.

In that environment, a proposed public-facing campaign bearing the words:

GOD CURSES THOSE WHO CURSE THE JEWS Genesis 12:3 Where do you stand?

is already raising eyebrows.

That reaction is understandable. The language is stark. The tone is confrontational. And unlike most contemporary anti-hate campaigns, it does not ask for dialogue.

That, precisely, is the point.

Antisemitism as a Spiritual Identity System

For many followers of religiously framed antisemitic content, hatred does not register as prejudice. It registers as obedience.

Antisemitism in these spaces functions less like an opinion and more like an identity—reinforced by online authorities who claim divine sanction. The emotional rewards are powerful: belonging, certainty, and moral elevation.

Traditional counter-messaging struggles here because it assumes people are open to evidence or discussion. But when hatred is fused to spiritual identity, facts and moral appeals rarely penetrate.

What can penetrate is a threat to perceived alignment with God.

That is the pressure point this proposed campaign targets.

A Direct Biblical Statement, Not a Theological Argument

The campaign is anchored in a single verse:

“I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse.” — Book of Genesis 12:3

“I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse.” — Book of Genesis 12:3

This is not an obscure or marginal passage. It is a foundational statement embedded in the Abrahamic covenant, appearing in the same Bible revered by Jews and Muslims, and foundational to Christian scripture as well.

The billboard does not interpret the verse. It does not contextualize it. It does not explain it.

It simply presents it.

That restraint is deliberate. Explanation invites debate. Debate advantages influencers. A declarative citation short-circuits that dynamic.

Structural Roots in a Proven Model

The proposal borrows its structural logic from the disruptive, text-forward approach used by the He Gets Us campaign, which demonstrated that minimalist religious messaging can still break through saturated media environments.

This antisemitism-disruption proposal adopts that same architecture—short statements, high visibility, emotional immediacy—while intentionally shifting the tone from empathy to moral confrontation.

The mechanism is the same. The message is not.

Why the Campaign Is Intentionally Unsettling

Many anti-hate efforts aim to invite reflection or conversation. This proposal aims to introduce moral instability.

It plants a single, corrosive question:

If this verse is true, and I participate in antisemitism, where does that place me with God?

Not theoretically. Not someday. Now.

The goal is not to shame individuals or declare them irredeemable. It is to confront them with the possibility that a path wrapped in religious language may place them in direct opposition to God’s stated posture.

Discomfort is not a side effect. It is the mechanism.

Disruption, Not Dialogue

Bridge-building assumes two sides seeking contact.

What exists instead is a one-way pipeline in which influencers continuously reinforce antisemitic narratives with little interruption.

This proposal inserts a silent obstacle into that pipeline.

A billboard does not argue. It does not respond. It does not negotiate.

And in standing, it competes with claims of divine authority.

Why Piloting Is Essential

Because the approach is intentionally hard-edged, it should be tested before broad deployment.

A responsible pilot would include limited test markets, pre- and post-exposure attitude measurement, and close monitoring for both softening and hardening effects.

The objective is not maximal shock. The objective is measurable pause.

If early pilots show increased questioning, scripture-checking, or distancing from antisemitic content, the model merits expansion. If not, it should be retooled or abandoned.

Boldness without discipline is recklessness. Discipline without boldness is paralysis.

This proposal argues for both.

Forcing a Choice Without Naming a Target

The billboard does not say, “God hates you.”

It says, “God curses those who curse the Jews.”

Then it asks, “Where do you stand?”

The focus is not identity. It is alignment.

Religious systems are organized around alignment: blessing or curse, obedience or rebellion, walking with God or against Him.

By framing antisemitism as a cursed position rather than an inherent trait, the campaign implicitly offers an exit ramp: alignment can change.

No influencer authorization required.

A Necessary Moral Interruption

This proposed campaign is not a policy platform. It is not a theological treatise. It is not a mass education effort.

It is a moral interruption.

A sharp insertion of scripture into an ecosystem where scripture is routinely weaponized against Jews—but rarely allowed to speak for itself.

If even a small fraction of viewers pause long enough to feel unsettled, to look up Genesis 12:3, or to quietly question whether their spiritual authorities are leading them toward blessing or curse, the effort will have achieved something rare:

Not persuasion. Not consensus.

But a crack in certainty.

And in the present environment, cracks matter.

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)