“Hateful words targeting Denver Jews wrongly demonizes Zionism” is the headline over an op-ed in the Denver Post, Sept. 20, 2026, by Scott Levin and Rabbi Joe Black.
I have penned comments on this op-ed. I invited Scott Levin and Rabbi Black to respond. Their comments follow mine.
By Rabbi Hillel Goldberg:
The point of the op-ed was to convey that to be a Zionist is to support Israel’s right to exist and the Jewish people’s right to self-determination, without agreeing with every policy of the Israel government. The piece argued that criticism of Israeli policy is not inherently anti-Semitic, but it is anti-Semitic to deny Israel’s right to exist, and it is unacceptable to hold American Jews responsible for Israeli policy. Local anti-Zionism is un- acceptable, whether by a local restaurant or on the DPS school board.
“Demonizing Zionism without understanding its historical, cultural, and spiritual importance to the vast majority of the Jewish community only serves to create fear and division, and triggers historical trauma,” the two authors write in what I take to be their broader point.
To illustrate the right to criticize Israeli policy, they write:
“We . . . support a two-state solution and condemn violence by Israeli settlers against Palestinians.”
I condemn this violence.
They write:
“We believe the Israeli government has a responsibility to protect innocent Palestinians and hold perpetrators responsible.”
I believe that the Israeli government has a responsibility to hold perpetrators responsible.
I also believe in context.
I believe that one critical reason why Zionism is demonized is because debate on Israel and Palestinians is woefully lacking in context.
This op-ed lacked one short sentence to provide the critical context: “We . . . condemn violence by Palestinians against Israelis.”
How realistic is a two-state solution — an Israeli state and a Palestinian state — if the Palestinian state is to be subject to the bigotry of low expectations? The Palestinian Authority, which exercises de facto sovereignty over parts of the West Bank, which has its own police force and de facto army, and which is recognized as a state by many European countries, does not hold Palestinian perpetrators responsible for the heinous murder of Israelis. To the contrary, the Palestinian Authority financially rewards the murderers, or their families, for killing innocent Israelis.
That is the context necessary for advocacy of a two-state solution.
An Israeli father of six, also a French citizen, was just murdered for the crime of immersing in a natural spring on the eve of Yom Kippur. His son miraculously escaped with his life. This occurred after the Levin-Black article was published, so why do I bring it up? Because there are thousands of such examples of heinous Palestinians murders of Israeli (and before 1948 of Jewish) innocents before this one, stretching back some 145 years.
That is context. It is not hinted at in the Denver Post op-ed.
The two authors write:
“FBI statistics demonstrate that even before Hamas began the current war on October 7, 2023, Jews have been the target of nearly 70% of all reported religion-based hate crimes. This is why most American synagogues must now hire security guards to protect children attending religious school and congregants when they enter to pray.”
This is true. This is sad. This is important to mention. This requires unwanted budgetary expenditures. This is emotionally jarring. This is not the United States I have lived most of my life in.
But all that said, was this the primary context of Hamas’ Oct. 7 invasion, atrocities and hostage-taking? Wasn’t the primary context the heightened threat to Israel’s existence from Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis and Iran; the miserable plight of Gazans; and the drastic rise in attempted Palestinian terror attacks on innocent Israelis?
Granted, not every context can be provided in a single op-ed. Besides, I have a personal rule: Comment on the article that the authors wrote, not on the article they didn’t write. Even so, an article without even a hint at the larger context of the burning question of the demonization of Zionism?
The authors can be beautifully succinct. They write: “The word ‘Zionist,’ and the meaning of Zionism itself, have been co-opted, corrupted, and conflated with evil.”
For context, I need more: “Zionism includes Israel’s inherent right of self-defense and expects the acknowledgment of the IDF’s high moral standard, which settler violence ironically highlights by perverting it.”
By Scott Levin and Rabbi Joe Black:
In his response to our Sept. 18 op-ed in the Denver Post about the dangers of demonizing the words “Zionism” and “Zionist,” Rabbi Hillel Goldberg states that it is his personal rule to “comment on the article that the authors wrote, not on the article they didn’t write.” That said, it appears he would have liked us to write a different article.
In an effort to demonstrate that one need not agree with the policies of the government to still be devoted to the Jewish state of Israel, we gave the example of our support of a two-state solution. Although it was not part of our op-ed, we agree with Rabbi Goldberg’s analysis:
“How realistic is a two-state solution — an Israeli state and a Palestinian state — if the Palestinian state is to be subject to the bigotry of low expectations? The Palestinian Authority, which exercises de facto sovereignty over significant parts of the West Bank, which has its own police force and de facto army, and which is recognized as a state by many countries, does not hold Palestinian perpetrators responsible for the heinous murder of Israelis. To the contrary, the Palestinian Authority financially rewards the murderers, or their families, for killing innocent Israelis.
“That is the context necessary for advocacy of a two-state solution.”
Yet, the purpose of our op-ed was not to advocate for a two-state solution. We cited our support merely to point out that our support of the Jewish state of Israel is not conditioned on the current policy of the government of Israel. To be clear, we know such a solution is unrealistic given current conditions. We are not naïve enough to believe that the goal of two states can be achieved overnight or without sufficient guaranties of security and safety for and by all involved. We recognize that the road to such a solution will be difficult to achieve and that there are many who believe that it is no longer attainable. Similarly, our criticism of Jewish settler violence in the West Bank did not mean that we should overlook the brutality and horror of Palestinian terror or the complicity of Palestinian leadership that supports it.
The reality of submitting an op-ed limited to 650 words is that there is rarely ever enough space to provide context and nuance — especially when writing about an issue as complex as the existential conflict between Israel and her enemies. Given the limited space available, we chose to focus on the danger of the propaganda spewed by those who pervert and misuse the term “Zionist” to demonize and delegitimize the State of Israel. We believe that must be called out at every turn. Full stop.
We are proud to have called attention to a growing issue here in Denver, around the country, and, indeed, around the world. We stand by our words and, unfortunately, we know that they will not be our last comments on this subject.
With prayers for peace in the new year, we are . . . sincerely,
Rabbi Joseph Black — Rabbi Emeritus, Temple Emanuel, Denver
Scott Levin — Former Director, Mountain States Region of the Anti-Defamation League
