Jewish anti-Zionists seem to be pleased with themselves. An increasing number of them, including some Israelis, are endorsing the false charge that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. Even those who do not go that far are taking an increasingly harsh line against the Jewish state.
Peter Beinart (pictured above), a Jewish anti-Zionist best known in America, personifies this trend. In a 10-minute monologue entitled “the dam breaks” on the Beinart Notebook, his internet channel, he crowed about more Jews moving towards the anti-Zionist camp. For him this proves that his side has been right all along since 7 October. Israel is, in his view, an oppressor and Hamas is fighting for liberation. At the end he lauded what he sees as belated recognition that genocide is taking place. In the video clip’s background, presumably underlining his Jewish credentials, he had the multi-volume Babylonian Talmud, a key text of Jewish law.
Corey Robin, a professor at Brooklyn college, has made a similar argument on his website. He discusses his own shift over the years to anti-Zionism and points to increasing Jewish criticism of Israeli action.
The point here is not to examine the genocide charge in detail. Although those who want to do that can follow the links. It is to examine whether the shift is being driven by events in the Middle East or in the West itself.
On a factual level, in terms of Jews shifting their positions, both men, sadly, have a point. The most high-profile was probably David Grossman , arguably Israel’s greatest living novelist, who said he had reluctantly concluded that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. Two Israeli human rights organisations, B’Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights, have also recently accused Israel of committing genocide. Former Israeli political figures making this claim recently include Michael Ben-Yair [Hebrew] (a former Israeli attorney-general) while Avraham (Avrum) Burg, a former speaker of the Israeli Knesset (parliament), has argued “the destruction of Gaza is a damning indictment of Israel’s moral bankruptcy”. Meanwhile, a group of 31 high profile signatories have had an open letter published calling on Israel to end its “brutal campaign” and arguing “The international community must impose crippling sanctions”.
Jewish academics who have recently switched their positions on genocide include Lihi Ben Shitrit (an NYU professor) and Dov Waxman (a UCLA professor).
It would be foolish to deny the significance of these shifts but they should not be overstated. There were, unfortunately, already several Jewish figures arguing this case before, as Beinart put it, the dam broke. Raz Segal, a professor at Stockton university, had a piece published as early as 13 October 2023 arguing that Israel was committing a "textbook case of genocide". That was less than a week after the 7 October pogrom and before Israeli ground forces had even entered Gaza. Omer Bartov, a professor at Brown university, was a little slower to draw that conclusion but for a long time he has been tirelessly promoting the genocide claim. Zeteo, a staunchly anti-Zionist publication, has helpfully compiled a list of prominent figures making the genocide claim. It includes several Jewish experts.
It should also be noted that many Jewish and Israeli figures recently accusing Israel of genocide have long condemned Israel. B’Tselem, for example, is an exponent of the idea that Israel is an apartheid regime. Or, as it puts it, “A regime of Jewish supremacy from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea”. Typically for a contemporary human rights organisation it is an overt political player rather than a defender of individual rights.
Nevertheless, it should not be forgotten that there are many experts rejecting the genocide claim. Unfortunately, they do not get as much coverage as those who go along with the prevailing anti-Israel narrative.
Those who have written rebuttals of the genocide claim include Jeffrey Herf (a historian) , Benny Morris (a historian), Rhona Seidelman (a historian), Bret Stephens (a prominent journalist) and John Spencer (a military expert).
The BESA Center at Israel’s Bar-Ilan university has also produced a comprehensive report although only the executive summary is available in English.
In any event the truth of claims should not be decided by their popularity but by whether they are accurate.
This is not the place to go into a refutation of the genocide charge in detail – articles linked to above have done that – but it is worth making some general points. What those accusing Israel of genocide typically have in common is a redefinition of the term. It was devised in the aftermath of the Second World War and codified in the United Nations Genocide Convention (1948). Its core claim is that genocide means “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”. That also coincides with dictionary definitions and with the common understanding of the term.
Yet by any reasonable measure that is not what Israel is doing in Gaza. Even accepting the (dubious) casualty figures emanating from Hamas the number of Gazans killed by Israel is about 62,000 out of a total population of about 2.1m. Israeli estimates put the number of Hamas fighters in this population at about 20,000. It is not possible to be certain about the accuracy of these numbers either but it is hard to believe a substantial number of combatants have not been killed.
The important point here is not the precise figures. It is that there is no evidence that Israel is attempting to eliminate Gazan Palestinians. On the contrary, with natural population growth, the Gazan population could well have increased since 7 October 2023.
In any case the charge of genocide against Israel literally goes back decades. Yet during that time the Palestinian population has increased enormously. According to UN figures what it defines as “the state of Palestine” – that is the Palestinian population in east Jerusalem, the Gaza strip and the West Bank – increased from 1.1m in 1967 (when Israel took over those territories) to 5.6m at present. That is a five-fold increase in 58 years. If Israel’s goal really is to eliminate the Palestinian population it is doing an unbelievably terrible job! What has changed recently is not the charge of genocide, or even a Palestinian population decline, but that the accusation is becoming more widely accepted.
One manifestation of this change in attitudes is that genocide is taking on a looser meaning. The statements by those who have recently shifted on this question provide a good illustration. Dov Waxman, for example, like many non-lawyer pundits reaches the conclusion that Israel’s actions are against international law. As evidence he claims that Israel’s prime minister is deliberately prolonging the war for his own reasons. He also suggests some ministers are hoping the destruction of Gaza could open the way for new Jewish settlements. Even if these accusations are true – and they are both speculative – they would not constitute genocide by the traditional definition [See his response at the foot of this article].
Ben Shitrit points to the killing of thousands of children and the restriction of humanitarian aid as key parts of evidence. No doubt the killing of children is tragic but in the context of a wider war it does not constitute genocide. Otherwise practically every war would be a genocide. As for the restriction of humanitarian aid what is in fact astonishing is that Israel is expected to feed its enemy’s civilian population. That could well be unprecedented in the history of war. She also ignores the argument that Hamas and the UN are responsible for food not reaching ordinary Gazans.
In addition, Ben Shitrit also claims that it is “undeniable” that the Israeli government and its media supporters are inciting for genocide. In fact there is ample room to debate this question. For example, Benjamin Netanyahu is routinely accused of genocidal intent for calling for the destruction of “Amalek” (the biblical enemy of the Jewish people) in Gaza in an October 2023 speech. But the full transcript shows he also argued: “The IDF is the most moral army in the world. The IDF does everything to avoid harming non-combatants. I again call on the civilian population to evacuate to a safe area in the southern Gaza Strip.” Even if the claim is regarded as exaggerated it suggests the reference to Amalek is not to the entire Gazan population but to Hamas.
In any event the shift among certain Jewish figures against Israel is a broader phenomenon even though the conflict provides a focus for the discussion. Of course it does not help that Israel is arguably losing the information war centred on the conflict.
The shift towards anti-Zionism among elite Jews – and it should be noted many are political figures and academics – is part of a broader shift in society. It can be seen as a part of the embrace of identity politics in elite circles.
What this means, among other things, is that significant sections of the elites are becoming increasingly cynical about the nation-state. In general terms – leaving aside the Israel debate for a moment – this means an increasing attachment to international institutions and an aversion to patriotism. In the European context this includes an attachment to European Union institutions over its member states. In politics it often means looking to human rights organisations to set the political agenda rather than a democratic appeal to the public.
In such circumstances Israel finds itself out of step. By its nature the Jewish state represents an assertion of national self-determination. However, it finds itself in a world in which many are hostile to such concepts. Contemporary elites often feel detached from their own nations at home let alone lending support to Israel.
Within Israel the situation is even more extreme. As I have written previously there is a small but significant post-Zionist trend in Israeli society. These are Israelis who to a large extent have lost faith in the project of having an Israeli nation-state. Not just the present government but to the aspiration for self-determination. That helps explain why they almost invariably appeal to the “international community” to tackle what they regard as Israel’s deficiencies rather than the Israeli public.
The shift of many prominent Jews to an increasingly anti-Zionist position is a cause for concern. However, it is best seen as part of a broader elite cynicism about the nation-state and democracy rather than something that stands on its own.
PS: 8 August 2025. Dov Waxman, quoted in the argument above, has said I have misrepresented his argument on genocide. I do not want to get into an exchange here, readers can make their own minds up, but this is his unedited response: "Very briefly, I think Israel’s actions—the systematic destruction of civilian infrastructure, persistent restrictions on the entry and distribution of humanitarian aid, the concentration of civilians into overcrowded and dangerous zones, etc.—indicate Israel’s intent to destroy Palestinian life in Gaza, which (in my non-expert opinion) I think crosses the legal threshold for genocide (the 1948 Genocide Convention states that killing or “deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part” constitutes genocide). I suspect that committing genocide has effectively become a means to either forcibly displace Palestinians from Gaza or decrease their population in Gaza."