WHEN “SAFETY” MEANS NO JEWS ALLOWED

Beneath all the therapeutic vocabulary, the message to most Jews remains remarkably simple: You are not welcome.

Does “Safe Space” mean “No Jews”?

A safe space is one where people are protected from harassment and violence. It is not a space where people are protected from encountering Jews with ordinary Jewish beliefs.

One of the most effective forms of moral laundering is the demand to make organizations, campuses, cultural spaces, or public institutions “safe” from Zionists.

Safety is a powerful word. It sounds compassionate, humane, and unobjectionable. Everyone deserves protection from harassment, intimidation, and violence. No one should be required to participate in a space where they are threatened or abused.

But that is not what is meant when activists demand safety from Zionists.

They are not asking to be protected from misconduct. They are asking to be protected from the presence of people who hold a particular political or communal conviction.

Zionism, in its broadest and most common meaning, is support for Jewish national self-determination and for the continued existence of Israel as a Jewish homeland.

Zionists disagree profoundly among themselves about borders, governments, settlements, religion, war, peace, and Palestinian statehood. Zionism does not prescribe a single political program any more than Canadian patriotism determines a person’s position on every decision made in Ottawa.

But for a large proportion of Jews, some form of attachment to Israel is not an incidental opinion. It is intertwined with family, history, religion, peoplehood, collective memory, and the experience of centuries of persecution.

A demand for a “Zionist-free space” is therefore not a neutral political boundary. In practice, it is a Jewish-exclusion policy that (not very) carefully avoids saying “No Jews.”

Jews may enter, provided they renounce an important part of Jewish identity. Jews may participate, provided they condemn Israel on demand. Jews may be included as individuals, provided they detach themselves from Jewish collective existence.

The Jew is welcome, in other words, only after passing an ideological inspection.

The purpose of such a test is not merely to determine what someone believes. It is to divide Jews into moral categories: the acceptable Jew and the unacceptable Jew, the enlightened Jew and the tribal Jew, the Jew who has repudiated Israel and the Jew who remains connected to it.

The acceptable Jew may be welcomed, quoted, and displayed as evidence that the space is not antisemitic. The unacceptable Jew may be excluded while the excluders continue to congratulate themselves on their antiracism.

Older forms of exclusion were explicit. They barred Jews as Jews. Contemporary exclusion is more sophisticated. It identifies a conviction held by almost all Jews, declares that conviction uniquely dangerous, and then insists that the resulting exclusion has nothing to do with Jewishness.

The same distortion occurs with the word “solidarity.”

Solidarity should mean standing beside people in their pursuit of dignity, safety, freedom, and justice. It should be broad enough to accommodate disagreement over strategy and complicated enough to acknowledge competing rights.

Within much of the Western “pro-Palestinian” movement, however, solidarity has become a demand for obedience to an entire ideological package.

To demonstrate solidarity, one must accept the approved vocabulary: apartheid, colonialism, genocide, and resistance. All bullshit words that, in this context, mean pretty much the opposite of what they mean in the real world.

Each word carries an argument inside it. To repeat the word is to accept the argument. To question the argument is to reveal oneself as insufficiently committed.

One must not complicate the narrative by discussing Hamas, Palestinian authoritarianism, corruption, religious extremism, rejected compromises, or antisemitism within Palestinian political culture.

One must not speak about Jewish history, Jewish vulnerability, or Jewish national rights.

One must not grieve Israeli civilians without immediately redirecting the conversation to Palestinians, as though Jewish grief is inherently suspect.

One must not advocate coexistence too enthusiastically, because coexistence “normalizes” Israel.

One must not suggest that Israelis have legitimate fears, that Palestinians possess political agency, or that peace will require compromise from both peoples.

The test is not whether one supports Palestinian well-being.

It is whether one demonstrates sufficient hostility to Israel.

This is how hatred becomes the entrance fee to compassion.

A person may advocate Palestinian statehood, civil rights, economic opportunity, freedom of movement, accountable government, and peace — and still be dismissed as insufficiently pro-Palestinian if they also support Israel’s continued existence.

Meanwhile, someone may glorify violence, romanticize “resistance,” justify unspeakable attacks on civilians, and reject coexistence, yet still be welcomed as an authentic voice of solidarity.

The moral categories have been inverted.

Concern for Palestinian life is treated as less important than hostility toward Israel. Supporting a negotiated future is treated as morally weaker than performing revolutionary rage. The actual well-being of Palestinians becomes secondary to the emotional and ideological needs of Western activists.

This explains why “Zionist-free” spaces and compulsory “solidarity” so often appear together.

The first excludes Jews who refuse to repudiate Jewish collective existence.

The second admits them only if they repeat the movement’s required beliefs.

One closes the door.

The other offers entry on condition of obedience.

Both are presented as compassionate. Both are defended as antiracist. And both transform Jewish participation into something conditional.

No other minority is routinely told that inclusion depends on repudiating the national, religious, cultural, or historical attachments of most members of its community. No genuinely pluralistic space should require people to sever themselves from a central part of their identity before they are considered safe enough to enter.

A safe space is one where people are protected from harassment and violence.

It is not a space where people are protected from encountering Jews with ordinary Jewish beliefs.

Solidarity is standing with Palestinians in their pursuit of dignity and peace.

It is not a loyalty oath requiring hatred of Israel.

When “safety” means excluding Zionists and “solidarity” means ideological obedience, compassionate language is being used to disguise coercion.

The words have been moralized.

The practice has not.

And beneath all the therapeutic vocabulary, the message to most Jews remains remarkably simple:

You are welcome only after you become someone else.

*

Follow me on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61588402258315

Follow me on Insta: https://www.instagram.com/patsshtick/

Follow me on X: https://x.com/PatsShtick

*

Some people have generously asked me to make it possible to make one-time contributions to support my work. I have now set up a PayPal link for donations. If you like snappy smackdowns of antisemitism and anti-Zionism and want me to keep it up, any support is deeply appreciated. Click here.