Consequential: A ruling on anti-Zionism you can’t ignore even if you want to.
Multiple choice test.
Question: Who would be the most consequential in defining the Star of David as a Jewish symbol, and in arguing that defacing a Jewish star is outright anti-Semitism?
A. Your rabbi
B. Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-NY)
C. A Jewish historian
D. Gov. Josh Shapiro (D-Penn)
E. A federal judge
Your rabbi might be extremely articulate and persuasive, but also a person of fairly local impact. Even well known rabbinic scholars such as Rabbi A. J. Heschel or rabbinic leaders of national Jewish organizations who have (or had) a much larger reach than your local rabbi, are not “the most consequential” in defining and denouncing anti-Semitism. After all, they’re supposed to. Nobody is going to pay much attention if Zelensky tells you that the worst hatred comes out of Moscow.
Rep. Ritchie Torres is perhaps the most pro-Israel voice in Congress today, and people certainly pay attention to what he says, but, as he himself notes, what makes a Congressperson consequential is the extreme patience and persistence it takes to see a law through to passage, and to approval by the President —a very long process. A Congressperson’s denunciation of anti-Semitism is important, but it doesn’t have the force of law.
A Jewish historian speaks from knowledge. His definition of a Jewish star as a strong symbol of Judaism carries the weight of academic authority. But on such an emotional and political issue as anti-Semitism, a scholar’s reach is hardly more than a local rabbi’s.
Gov. Josh Shapiro is Jewish. If it is he who is subject to anti-Semitism, it stings. And he was subject to a dangerous attack last Passover, and it stung. He defined the attack as anti-Semitic (which it was) and roundly denounced it. But after a couple of weeks, Gov. Shapiro’s words were all but forgotten. Rightly or wrongly, no long term consequence there.
What a federal judge says does have the force of law. If a federal judge defines an attack on a Star of David as anti-Semitic and denounces the attack, then even if only a small number of people pay attention to the judge, his ruling changes society. His ruling is consequential, even if the judge is not particularly articulate. His ruling stands on its own. Even though he does not command the full range of scholarship on how the Star of David became a Jewish symbol, his ruling only needs to cover the basics, and cover them accurately, to be consequential. Whether the judge is Jewish or not is not of consequence. His ruling is.
Trevor McFadden, a district court judge for the District of Columbia, ruled this month that the Star of David “symbolizes the Jewish race” and that attacking such a symbol, even on an Israeli flag, is “racial discrimination.”
JNS reports that McFadden ruled in favor of pro-Israel activist Kimmara Sumrall, who is Jewish. She filed a civil lawsuit against Janine Ali for assaulting her during a pro-Israel demonstration in Washington in November, 2024.
Sumrall said that while she was wearing an Israeli flag tied around her neck as a cape at the 2024 rally, Janine Ali, an anti-Israel activist present at a counter-protest organized by Code Pink, approached Sumrall from behind and yanked on the flag, briefly choking her, according to the lawsuit.
A police officer witnessed the incident and arrested Ali at the scene.
Judge McFadden found that Ali “purposefully discriminated against” Sumrall based on her race.
“Purposefully yanking on an Israeli flag tied around a Jewish person’s neck to choke them is direct evidence of racial discrimination,” the federal judge said.
“The Star of David — emblazoned upon the Israeli flag — symbolizes the Jewish race.”
McFadden directly addressed the claim widely maintained these days by anti-Israel protesters that to be anti-Israel is not to be anti-Semitic. McFadden dismissed the defendant’s argument that the Israeli flag represents the State of Israel, so her alleged action is “merely anti-Israel, not anti-Semitism.”
“Battery is not a legitimate form of protest,” McFadden stated in his ruling. Besides, “Ali did not have reason to think Sumrall was herself affiliated with the Israeli government. Rather, it is much more likely that she [Ali] was intentionally attacking a Jewish person wearing a Jewish flag as a symbol of her racial heritage.”
There you go. A Star of David is a Jewish symbol. A Star of David is integral to the Israeli flag. An attack on the Israeli flag is an attack on the Jewish “racial heritage.”
Who would be most the consequential in defining the Star of David as a Jewish symbol, and in saying that defacing it is anti-Semitism? A federal judge. A civil lawsuit went one way, and not the other way, due to a federal judge. That is consequential!
Matthew Mainen, plaintiff Sumrall’s lawyer and a litigation counsel with the National Jewish Advocacy Center, told the Times of Israel that McFadden’s ruling marked “the strongest language a federal court has come out with yet that anti-Zionism is obviously anti-Semitism.”
Defendant Ali’s lawyers argued that there was no malicious contact between the two other than a brief bump and that the restraining order sought through the civil suit would prevent Ali from attending protests, thus violating her First Amendment rights since both Sumrall and Ali regularly attend the same events on opposing sides.
The judge saw through all that.
Hate is hate. An attack on a Jew with a Jewish symbol, which is also an Israeli symbol, is anti-Semitic. So ruled Judge Trevor McFadden.
That is consequential.
© IJN 2025
