Systemic anti-Semitism operates differently from other systems of oppression. Rather than be pushed to the bottom of a given society, Jews have historically been positioned in the middle as shock absorbers for the ruling class. Understanding how anti-Semitism developed as a strategy to deflect blame for systemic injustices is helpful for understanding the State of Israel’s position on the world stage.

According to a theory put forward by Aurora Levins Morales, the function of anti-Semitism has been to create a vulnerable buffer group that can be bribed with some privileges and protection into managing the exploitation of others.

Under Feudalism, Jews were “middle agents” drafted as local representatives of a distant ruling class that exploited them while squeezing Europe’s peasants and workers. Jews would often cooperate with the ruling classes of Europe because Jewish experiences of persecution created a desperation for a sense of security. But when social pressure would build, the buffer group would be blamed and scapegoated in order to distract those at the bottom from the crimes of those at the top. Peasants who initiated pogroms against their Jewish neighbors generally didn’t make it to the nobleman’s castle. Levins Morales explains this to have been the role of Jews in Medieval Europe.

The institutionalization of anti-Semitism in the United States has been more complicated. While systemic racism works to ensure the Black community’s failure in disproportionally high numbers, anti-Semitism grants Jews very visible inclusion and disproportionate success in such a way that reinforces anti-Jewish conspiracy theories. Jews are therefore positioned in society so as to be easily scapegoated by the establishment in the event of a major crisis.

On a smaller scale, this has forced Jews into conflict with other minority communities, who often perceive Jews as beneficiaries of the same institutions they experience as oppressive. And the more vulnerable a Jewish community feels, the more desperate it becomes for security, which in turn only increases its dependency on the power structure. 

This also seems to be the role designed for the State of Israel on the international stage.

Israel’s first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, believed the state’s survival to be dependent on serving the interests of a powerful nation. This “super power patronage” doctrine resulted from centuries of anti-Semitic conditioning and first sought out a relationship with the Soviet Union before shifting to France and eventually coming  under the control of the United States. These relationships offered Israel a sense of security on the international stage but also required that Israel act according to Western interests in the Semitic region.

Natan Yellin-Mor, who led the Fighters for the Freedom of Israel against British rule in the 1940s and upheld a doctrine of Semitic solidarity, was disappointed that Israel sided with imperial powers against the Jewish people’s most natural allies.

Yellin-Mor believed Israel should be a revolutionary actor on the international stage that sides with the oppressed and protects the Semitic region from imperialist agendas. But still traumatized from exile and not yet comfortable with power, Israeli society wasn’t ready for such revolutionary ideas. But now that demographic shifts over several decades have weakened Israel’s westernized ruling class while strengthening the sectors of society more connected to Jewish identity, the Israeli public might be mature enough for new ideas.

Jewish liberation today requires Israel to break free from the middle agent oppressor role. By making a conscious decision to stop siding with the oppressors of the world and start siding with the oppressed, Israel can not only neutralize anti-Semitism’s effectiveness but also play a revolutionary role in humanity’s advancement.