Jonathan Greenblatt Debunked

Below is a debunking of the false premises, misleading statements, and manipulative tactics used by Jonathan Greenblatt in the interview to defend Zionism, Israel, and smear anti-Zionism. The analysis focuses on key arguments and their flaws.

1. Equating Anti-Zionism with Anti-Semitism

Greenblatt's Claim:
He asserts that anti-Zionism is inherently anti-Semitic because it denies Jews the right to self-determination in their "ancient homeland." He argues that anti-Zionism seeks the elimination of the Jewish state and is thus equivalent to anti-Semitism.

Debunking:

• False Equivalence: Anti-Zionism critiques the political ideology of Zionism, which has resulted in the displacement and oppression of Palestinians. It does not inherently oppose Jewish people or their right to exist. Many Jews are anti-Zionist and reject the idea that Judaism requires a state that privileges Jews over others.

• Self-Determination ≠ State Supremacy: Greenblatt conflates the right to self-determination with the right to a Jewish-majority state that systematically discriminates against non-Jews. Palestinian self-determination is denied under Zionism as currently practiced in Israel.

• Historical Context: Zionism as a political movement emerged in the late 19th century, not as an ancient claim. The establishment of Israel in 1948 involved the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians (the Nakba), which Greenblatt ignores.

Example:
When Lulu asks if anti-Zionism advocating for equal rights in Israel/Palestine is anti-Semitic, Greenblatt dodges by invoking extreme examples (arson, violence) that are not representative of mainstream anti-Zionism. This is a strawman.

2. Misrepresenting Criticism of Israel as Anti-Semitism

Greenblatt's Claim:
He states that criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitic unless it involves "demonization, delegitimization, or double standards." However, he then broadly applies these labels to critiques of Israel's policies (e.g., calling Israel's actions in Gaza "genocide").

Debunking:

• "Demonization": Greenblatt claims that calling Israel a "Nazi state" or accusing it of genocide is anti-Semitic. But these are political analogies based on Israel's actions (e.g., mass killings, displacement, and statements by Israeli leaders). They are not attacks on Jews as a group.

• "Delegitimization": He frames any challenge to Israel's right to exist as anti-Semitic, even when critics oppose its discriminatory structure (e.g., a state privileging Jews over non-Jews). This conflates state legitimacy with its policies.

• "Double Standards": This is a common Zionist deflection. Holding Israel accountable for war crimes is not a double standard; it’s a response to its actions and U.S. support for them.

Example:
When David Grossman (a prominent Israeli author) calls Gaza a "genocide," Greenblatt dismisses it as a "legal definition" issue rather than engaging with the substance of the claim. This is disingenuous—many legal scholars and human rights groups (e.g., UN experts, South Africa's ICJ case) argue Israel's actions meet the definition of genocide.

3. Smearing Pro-Palestinian Activism

Greenblatt's Claim:
He accuses Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) of "material support for terrorism" because they used terms like "Zionist entity" and distributed Hamas literature. He also links anti-Zionist activism to violence against Jews in the U.S.

Debunking:

• Guilt by Association: SJP's use of terms like "Zionist entity" (common in critiques of settler colonialism) does not prove ties to Hamas. Greenblatt provides no evidence of direct coordination.

• Free Speech Hypocrisy: He claims ADL supports free speech but then advocates for investigating SJP under anti-terror laws. This is a clear attempt to suppress dissent.

• False Causation: He blames anti-Zionist rhetoric for violence against Jews, but most anti-Semitic violence in the U.S. comes from the far-right (e.g., Pittsburgh synagogue shooter).

Example:
Greenblatt cites a Barnard protest where Hamas pamphlets were distributed, implying SJP is a Hamas proxy. This is a cherry-picked incident, not proof of systemic terrorism support.

4. Ignoring Palestinian Suffering

Greenblatt's Claim:
He acknowledges the "tragedy" in Gaza but deflects blame to Hamas, saying they "chose" to build tunnels instead of protecting civilians. He avoids addressing Israel's role in mass starvation, bombing civilians, and blocking aid.

Debunking:

• Collective Punishment: Israel's siege and bombardment of Gaza (e.g., 35,000+ killed, 70% women and children) are war crimes, regardless of Hamas's actions. Greenblatt ignores this.

• Disingenuous Sympathy: He calls Gaza "heart-wrenching" but refuses to label it genocide, despite overwhelming evidence (e.g., Israeli officials calling for "erasure," mass graves, targeted starvation).

• Hamas as Scapegoat: While Hamas is responsible for atrocities on October 7, Israel’s disproportionate response (and decades of occupation) is the root cause of violence.

Example:
When Lulu mentions starvation in Gaza, Greenblatt pivots to Hamas "black-marketing aid," ignoring that Israel controls all borders and has systematically blocked aid.

5. Deflecting Criticism of ADL's Partisanship

Greenblatt's Claim:
He denies that ADL has aligned with the right, despite praising Trump's Education Secretary ("God bless Betsy DeVos") and supporting deportations of pro-Palestinian activists.

Debunking:

• Hypocrisy on Free Speech: ADL under Greenblatt has increasingly targeted left-wing activism (e.g., BDS, SJP) while downplaying far-right anti-Semitism (e.g., Trump's "very fine people" comment).

• Partisan Double Standards: He applauds Trump's crackdown on universities but claims ADL is nonpartisan. This is contradicted by his rhetoric (e.g., calling protesters "frothing at the mouth").

Example:
When asked about young Jews rejecting Zionism, Greenblatt dismisses them as outliers, ignoring polls showing growing disillusionment with Israel among young Jews.

Conclusion

Greenblatt's arguments rely on:

1. Conflation: Blurring anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism to silence criticism.

2. Strawmen: Painting anti-Zionists as violent or pro-Hamas to avoid engaging with their critiques.

3. Deflection: Shifting blame from Israel's crimes to Hamas or "extremists."

4. Partisan Bias: Collaborating with right-wing governments to suppress dissent.

The interview reveals a pattern of intellectual dishonesty aimed at defending Israeli apartheid and smearing its critics. Lulu Garcia-Navarro’s framing often reinforces these false premises, failing to challenge Greenblatt’s distortions rigorously.