Skip to content
NHOS

ArticlesAnalysis

Conditional belonging: the antisemitic purity tests imposed on Jews

Right-wing dual-loyalty accusations and progressive anti-Zionist exclusions use different politics to impose the same condition: Jews must disavow part of themselves before they belong.

About 8 min read

Support Israel on the new right and you can be called America Last. Support Israel in progressive spaces and you can be called racist. The costumes differ. The demand is familiar: explain why your Jewish attachment is allowed.

The issue is a social trap in American politics: support for Israel becomes proof that you are either insufficiently patriotic or insufficiently moral, regardless of what you believe about any particular Israeli policy.

TL;DR

On the right, Israel support can mark a Jew as disloyal or foreign. In progressive spaces, a Zionist identity can mark a Jew as morally contaminated and unfit for coalition politics. These are distinct antisemitic mechanisms: one alleges treason; the other imposes ideological purification.

Debate American interests and Palestinian rights without restraint. The line is crossed when Jews are judged as a group rather than by conduct: suspected of serving Israel on the right, or removed from unrelated civic life on the left. That restores a historical rule under which Jews may participate only after proving they are the acceptable kind of Jew.

Two mechanisms of conditional belonging

Right-wing shame

"You care about Israel more than America. You are America Last. You are a foreign-policy puppet. You are serving another nation."

The old trope underneath: dual loyalty and hidden control.

Left-wing shame

"You support Israel, so you are racist. You are colonialist. You support apartheid. You are outside the moral community."

The old trap underneath: collective guilt and political excommunication.

These are not identical claims. The right casts Jews as an alien political faction. The progressive version casts Jewish attachment as a contaminating ideology. Their shared result is conditional belonging: Jews may remain only after somebody else approves which parts of Jewish identity are politically permissible.

The blunt version is the old dual-loyalty charge: Jews, Zionists, or pro-Israel Americans are said to be more loyal to Israel than to the United States. The IHRA working definition of antisemitism (European Commission) names this as a contemporary example: accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to alleged Jewish priorities worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.

Recent reporting shows how this has moved in from the edges of the right. NPR reported that support for Israel among U.S. conservatives is cracking as isolationism and antisemitism change the tone, and described Tucker Carlson's interview with white nationalist Nick Fuentes. NPR noted that Fuentes promoted ideas including that American Jews are more faithful to Israel than to the United States.

"Opposition to Israel on the right isn't new, but younger conservatives appear to be rapidly moving away from supporting the close U.S. relationship with the country."

(NPR, November 2025)

A serious America First argument can ask whether any foreign aid, arms sale, alliance, or war serves American interests. That is normal policy debate. The antisemitic turn is when "is this policy good for America?" becomes "the Jews are not really American," or "Israel supporters are a fifth column."

The difference matters. You can oppose aid to Israel without accusing Jewish Americans of subversion. You can oppose a war without saying the war was manufactured by Israel or Jews. You can criticize lobbying without treating Jewish political participation as uniquely sinister.

The public degradation of Alfred Dreyfus in Paris in 1895
Alfred Dreyfus became the defining modern example of the loyalty test imposed on Jews: a Jewish officer could be treated as foreign even while serving his country. The right-wing version of the purity test revives that suspicion in contemporary language.Henri Meyer, public domain (copy hosted here via Wikimedia Commons).

The progressive mechanism: ideological exclusion

On the left, the shaming usually uses a different vocabulary: racism, colonialism, apartheid, genocide, human rights, indigenous sovereignty. Some of that vocabulary can describe real arguments about Israeli policy. The problem starts when it becomes a blanket rule that anyone who supports Israel's existence, or has a Zionist identity, is morally unfit for progressive spaces.

The Sunrise DC episode is a clean example. Jewish Telegraphic Agency reporting documented that the D.C. chapter of the Sunrise Movement declined to participate in a voting-rights rally because three pro-Israel Jewish groups were included: the Jewish Council on Public Affairs, the National Council of Jewish Women, and the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism. The rally was about voting rights, not Israel.

The national Sunrise Movement later called the local chapter's stance unacceptable and antisemitic. The local group apologized for singling out Jewish groups while maintaining its opposition to Zionism.

The pattern repeated more starkly in Cincinnati in 2025. Organizers removed Rabbi Ari Jun from an anti-Nazi rally because he was a known Zionist. One organizer said allowing Zionists to participate would undermine the event. The Jewish Telegraphic Agency documented the organizers' explicit reasoning. A rabbi was declared unfit to oppose Nazis because a political label had swallowed his civic standing.

The old rule both mechanisms restore

The right-wing purity test erases the fact that Americans can support an ally for American reasons, moral reasons, religious reasons, strategic reasons, family reasons, or Jewish reasons without ceasing to be American.

The left-wing purity test erases the fact that many Jews experience connection to Israel as part of identity, memory, peoplehood, family, fear, refuge, language, religion, and history, not as a blank check for every Israeli government. Pew Research Center found that eight-in-ten U.S. Jews say caring about Israel is an essential or important part of what being Jewish means to them, while also finding wide criticism of Israeli leadership and policy among American Jews.

"Eight-in-ten U.S. Jews say caring about Israel is an essential or important part of what being Jewish means to them."

(Pew Research Center, Jewish Americans in 2020)

That is why the social demand is so corrosive. It does not only say, "change your policy view." It says, "detach from a major part of how many Jews understand themselves, or accept that you are disloyal on the right and immoral on the left."

The Israeli flag displayed among member-state flags at the United Nations
Israel is a public state with policies that can be criticized like any other state. The purity test turns that ordinary political object into a demand that Jews prove civic fitness by renouncing attachment.Drork, public domain (copy hosted here via Wikimedia Commons).

European history repeatedly treated Jews as residents on probation: tolerated while useful, expelled when rulers withdrew protection, accused of serving foreign or religious interests, and required to demonstrate exceptional loyalty. Modern democratic language changes the authority administering the test, but not its structure. The Jew must prove belonging by repudiating the alleged Jewish collective.

What should be fair game

Aid packages, military decisions, settlements, occupation, war conduct, Palestinian rights, lobbying, congressional votes, and diplomatic strategy.

Debate these hard. Evidence belongs here.

What crosses the line

Treating Israel supporters as traitors, fifth columnists, racists by identity, foreign agents, or people who must be excluded from unrelated civic spaces.

That is antisemitic social punishment, not analysis.

Judge conduct, not Jewish attachment

If someone supports Israel, ask real questions. Do not ask them to perform ideological self-erasure.

  • Which Israeli policies do you support, oppose, or want changed?
  • Do you support equal civil rights for Jews and non-Jews?
  • Do you support Palestinian human rights and political self-determination?
  • Do you oppose collective punishment of civilians?
  • Do you oppose antisemitic tropes about Jewish control, dual loyalty, or Jewish responsibility for wars?
  • Do you apply the same moral rules to every country and every people?

Those questions leave room for real disagreement. They also refuse the cheap shortcut. Nobody should get to call themselves principled by replacing policy questions with a character indictment.

Selected sources

Sources below include definition frameworks, polling, reporting on right-wing Israel politics, progressive coalition exclusion, and related explainers.