Nexus board member, Steve Sheffey, explains what the New York Times got right – and wrong:
The New York Times’ June 14, 2025, editorial on antisemitism made some important points. It called attention to the significant surge in antisemitism and the importance of calling it out. It accurately noted that “the political right, including President Trump, deserves substantial blame” for rising antisemitism, including Trump’s use of antisemitism for political purposes and his normalization of hatred.
It pointed to the existence of antisemitism in some quarters of the progressive political left, but it drew a false equivalence by referring to the “bipartisan nature of the problem.” Both parties are not equally to blame. Not even close.
The Democratic Party has no equivalent to Donald Trump in its leadership. Unlike the Trump administration, the Biden and Obama administrations were not filled with white nationalists or purveyors of antisemitic myths.
The Democratic Party is, by any objective standard, better than the Republican Party on antisemitism. Calling out “both sides” can give an editorial the veneer of objectivity. I get it. In this case, it’s not true.
Antisemitism has manifested itself on some college campuses (not among Democrats in Congress) in conjunction with protests against the war in Gaza. Unfortunately, the Times erred in recommending Natan Sharansky’s 3 D test for determining whether criticism of Israel, including on college campuses, crosses the line into antisemitism.
Sharansky created his 3 Ds before better definitions existed. It is puzzling that the Times ignored them. The Nexus Project has a library of references that help clarify when criticism of Israel veers into antisemitism, including on campus. The Times could have better served its readers by using the Nexus guides.
Sharansky’s 3 Ds are demonization, delegitimization, and double standards.
Sometimes mnemonics are great. “My Very Enthusiastic Mother Just Served Us Noodles” is a wonderful way to remember the planets. But mnemonics don’t work so well with complexity or nuance. Sometimes the 3 Ds identify antisemitic criticism of Israel. But too often, they mislabel criticism of Israel as antisemitism, and that’s where we have to be careful.
“Delegitimizing Israel” can and might often be antisemitic, but not always. Delegitimizing the Jewish people’s right to self-determination while affording that same right to Palestinians is antisemitic. Anti-Zionism may be as well. But not always.
Ken Stern, the lead author of the IHRA definition of antisemitism, asks us to “imagine you are a Palestinian whose family was displaced in 1948 — and not merely displaced but also dispossessed from your home and from a sense of control over your own identity and life. The exercise of Jewish self-determination clearly had a negative impact on you and your family, not only on your past but your future. Is your objection to Zionism because you see a Jewish conspiracy [which would be antisemitic], or because someone else’s national expression harmed you and your national aspirations?”
Holding Israel to a double standard is sometimes, but not always, antisemitic. What do double standards even mean? Is every critic of Israel required to first criticize every country doing something worse before they can criticize Israel?
Imagine if, when we were marching for Soviet Jewry, someone had criticized us for not marching for people who were even more oppressed, or for not protesting the policies of countries that treated their citizens worse than the Soviets treated theirs. Were we guilty of double standards? Is any critic of any country required to find the very worst country on earth and criticize that country first?
Of course not. We had every right to focus on the Soviet Union’s treatment of Jews. Can we blame Palestinians for focusing on Israel? Is it per se antisemitic for non-Palestinians to focus on Israel? Rabbi Jill Jacobs wrote that “Human rights activists and organizations almost always choose a focus for their efforts. (One may reasonably work to end the genocide of the Rohingya community in Burma, for instance, without simultaneously addressing Assad’s slaughter of his people in Syria.)”
Jacobs explains that it might be reasonable to conclude in some cases that Israel attracts disproportionate attention not because of antisemitism, but because it is a top recipient of U.S. foreign aid. It is the only Western democracy “currently carrying out a military occupation of another people. Its territory is sacred to three major world religions. The existence of a strong U.S.-based lobby dedicated to promoting the policies of the Israeli government unsurprisingly generates a counterresponse. And Palestinians have built a national movement over the past five decades, unlike more recently displaced people.”
Social media is filled with memes attacking critics of Israel for not talking about the situations in China, Russia, Sudan, and Venezuela. Imagine if, on October 8, 2023, we had been accused of double standards for focusing on 1,200 murdered and 251 kidnapped, along with sexual violence, instead of atrocities in China, Russia, Sudan, and Venezuela. I wonder how many people posting those memes have ever spoken about human rights abuses in other countries.
Israel holds itself to a higher standard, the standard of a Western democracy, not the standards of China, Russia, Sudan, or Venezuela, or its Arab neighbors. Yet even if they are not antisemitic, the double standards to which Israel is held often cross the line into deeply callous and offensive.
The most recent example is the muted world response to Iran’s deliberate targeting of an Israeli hospital with no military value compared to the outrage when Israel bombed hospitals in Gaza that Hamas used for terrorism.
Demonizing Israel, depending on the language, is most often likely to be antisemitic. Characterizing Israel as a global evil force or comparing Israel to the Nazi regime is antisemitic. Accusations against Israel of “apartheid” or “genocide” are not, by themselves, antisemitic tropes or demonization.
At least three former Israeli Prime Ministers, Yitzhak Rabin, Ehud Barak, and Ehud Olmert, used the word “apartheid” to describe where Israel was headed if it did not find a way to exit most of the West Bank and achieve a two-state solution. Are we comfortable saying that Rabin, Barak, and Olmert used antisemitic rhetoric?
When former prime minister and former Jerusalem mayor Ehud Olmert accuses Israel of war crimes, when former defense minister Moshe Ya’alon accuses Israel of “ethnic cleansing,” and when thinkers like Rabbi Jay Michaelson accuse Israel of genocide,” can we say those accusations are antisemitic, no matter how wrong we think they might be?
Most glaringly, the editorial glossed over the fundamental differences between violence motivated by classic antisemitism and violence triggered by the animus toward the State of Israel.
Both are dangerous, but different strategies and frames are required when antisemitism arises in connection with Israel because the risk of confusing disagreeable or offensive speech with antisemitism is greater and qualitatively different.
“If we don’t understand the differences,” Jonathan Jacoby, national director of the Nexus Project told me, “we can’t develop effective strategies, and that weakens the fight against antisemitism.”
If you like what you’ve read, you might want to give my weekly newsletter a try. You can sign up for free here.