The line between tough political critique and historical prejudice has been erased in mainstream Western institutions. Just days ago, the Church of England’s General Synod voted to endorse a document labeling Israel a “colonial enterprise” and accusing it of “genocidal war.” Almost simultaneously, this rhetoric manifested on Capitol Hill. In a historic legislative fracture, nearly half of all House Democrats — 103 members — voted to eliminate $3.3 billion in security assistance to Israel, joined by isolationist Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY).
When a major church body and a near-majority of one of America’s political caucuses adopt the language of campus activists, it is no longer a normal foreign policy debate. It is a targeted campaign to render the world’s only Jewish state morally radioactive.
To be absolutely clear: Israel is a sovereign nation, not a sacred entity. It is not beyond reproach. Like the United States, Great Britain, or any other democracy navigating a complex war, its policies and military strategies are fair game for scrutiny.
It is entirely legitimate to debate the proportionality of an airstrike, criticize West Bank settlement expansion, or demand better humanitarian aid delivery. Indeed, the fiercest critics of Israeli policy are often Israelis themselves. They regularly fill the streets of Tel Aviv in protest and argue these issues across a free press. This is how democratic accountability works.
But there is a vast difference between criticizing a government’s wartime choices and using pseudo-legal buzzwords designed to deny a nation its right to exist. Where does the hyperbole stop?
A realistic view of history requires accepting an uncomfortable truth: whenever war occurs, civilian suffering follows. From the Allied bombings in World War II to the Western campaigns against ISIS in Mosul, urban warfare inevitably results in horrific collateral damage. Tragic civilian casualties and broken infrastructure are the universal hallmarks of military conflict, not evidence of unique malevolence.
Yet, when these realities occur in Gaza, the vocabulary shifts. The casual use of “genocide” ignores both law and context. Coined by Raphael Lemkin in the shadow of the Holocaust, the term requires a proven intent to destroy a national or ethnic group. Applying this to Israel — a nation using early warning systems, evacuation corridors, and tactical pauses to minimize civilian casualties while fighting terrorists embedded in dense cities — turns reality on its head. It is a rhetorical tactic meant to strip Jews of their historical status as victims of actual genocide by branding them as its modern perpetrators.
The accusation of “colonialism” is equally broken. A colonial enterprise requires a mother country to send its population abroad to exploit a foreign territory. But Israel is the site of the Jewish people’s ancient, native roots — a continuous 3,000-year connection documented by history and archaeology. You cannot colonize the land of your own nativity.
Far from being an “apartheid” state, Israel operates as a multi-ethnic society. Step into any Israeli hospital, university, or public square, and you will see millions of citizens living and working peacefully together. This includes Muslims, Christians, Druze, and Jews. They all enjoy full civil liberties, equal voting rights, and representation on the nation’s Supreme Court and in parliament. To slap the label of apartheid onto a society that actively protects this multi-faith pluralism is to choose ideological warfare over empirical fact.
Even the accusation of “deliberate child targeting” mimics a dark, familiar script. In modern asymmetric warfare, terrorist organizations such as Hamas embed rocket launchers and command hubs within schools and neighborhoods. They use minors as human shields to maximize the very collateral damage they seek to publicize. Flipping this tragic tactical reality into a claim that Israel systematically targets children is a direct, modernized echo of the medieval blood libels that sparked centuries of European pogroms.
Some may look at the current multi-faith coexistence inside Israel and dismiss it as an idealistic anomaly, arguing that real regional peace is an unrealistic dream. But as I previously outlined in the Jerusalem Post, where I proposed a multi-state solution within a single country framework, the seeds of new hope must be sought in our shared commonalities, not in constant, divisive thoughts.
What is truly unrealistic is continuing to cling to old, broken political models that have repeatedly failed to pan out. Lasting peace cannot be built on rhetoric that demands total victory or total erasure. It requires a forward-looking paradigm shift that honors local governance and cooperative coexistence while rejecting the vocabulary of delegitimization.
OPINION — THE PATHOGEN OF JEW-HATRED: DIAGNOSING AN AMERICAN MIND VIRUS
Modern Jew-hatred no longer relies on the outdated theological or racial slurs of the past. Instead, it cloaks itself in the respectable vestments of international law, human rights, and congressional amendments. This is the exact mechanism behind the pathogen of Jew-hatred: diagnosing an American mind virus, where traditional prejudices are swapped for absolute, hyperbolic terms such as “colonialism,” “apartheid,” and “genocide.” By doing so, critics seek to move Israel out of the realm of nations requiring political reform and into the realm of evils requiring total eradication.
True criticism seeks to correct a state’s actions. Modern hyperbole seeks to eliminate the state itself. Until our mainstream political, cultural, and religious institutions learn to distinguish between the two, they will continue to serve as respectable vectors for the world’s oldest hatred.
Eric Wargotz is a physician, emeritus professor of pathology at George Washington University School of Medicine, president of the Maryland State Medical Society, and an elected judge of the Orphans’ Court, Queen Anne’s County, Judiciary of Maryland. The views expressed do not represent those of his employer.