Redemptive Antisemitism 2.0
A Quieter Logic
I come from a family of enthusiastic Democrats. My brother volunteers in his local party, made calls and canvassed for Kamala in 2024, and knows every Democrat in his district. My mother had a slew of yard signs at the foot of her driveway during that campaign. Although I vote in a different district, I remember the names on those signs. So when Ohio State Senator Dr. Beth Liston’s Facebook post about Israel surfaced in my feed last fall, it caught my attention.
The Facebook Post
The post runs several paragraphs and warrants careful reading.
On September 12, 2025, Liston announced that she had canceled a planned legislative trip to Israel. She had intended to go in order to “learn and ask tough questions of the Israeli government actions, particularly related to humanitarian aid in Gaza.” As a minority member of the Ohio legislature, her effectiveness lay in asking questions, “with the goal of pointing out issues and improving policy” — the mode of engagement she meant to bring to the trip. In preparation she had studied history books, news articles, NGO publications, and congressional reports; she had also met with Jewish and Palestinian constituents, seeking to guard against “biased one-sided perspectives” and to arrive with “a list of things to ask.”
Then the pivot: “What I decided was that I didn’t just need to guard against propaganda. I WAS the propaganda in this sponsored trip. I did not want to be used as a tool in support of the Israeli government actions. I cancelled the trip.”
The post closes in the register of civic gratitude: “If you emailed, called or otherwise reached out to me. THANK YOU. I believe this is how democracy is supposed to work. We are indeed better when we work together.” Five days later, in an interview with a local publication, the journalist called her “rare” for listening to constituents and “overtly transparent.” Democracy working as it should.
Read quickly, the post looks like a politician responding to constituent pressure. Read closely, it follows a more striking shape. The first paragraph sets up the trip and her intent. The second details her preparation. The third pivots to the recognition and the cancellation. The fourth arrives at civic gratitude.
The issue is not Liston’s criticism of Israel or her cancellation of the trip. The issue is that, in her account, a trip she had prepared for as an opportunity to ask tough questions was still named “propaganda.” What produced that verdict requires a closer look.
Performing Deliberation
The most important feature of Liston’s post is her preparation. She studied, consulted widely, and met with both Jewish and Palestinian constituents. She described the project as an effort to arm herself against “biased one-sided perspectives.” By any reasonable measure, that preparation appears exemplary, which is precisely what makes the post structurally revealing. Her conclusion cannot easily be dismissed as uninformed or careless. Yet the very preparation that establishes her seriousness also helps insulate the conclusion from challenge. The analysis here is not a judgment of her character, but an examination of the framework operating through her.
Deliberation becomes most structurally powerful when it is sincere, and Liston’s deliberation was sincere. She was genuinely preparing, genuinely consulting, genuinely open as she understood openness to be. The conditions, though, were skewed because the framework through which she would process the encounter with Israel had already shaped what she could find. By the time she opened the books and met the constituents, the framework had already narrowed what could count as a verdict. When she writes that she “WAS the propaganda,” she is reporting a conclusion her framework had already prepared her to reach.
How do we know? The post leaves two traces: first, her refusal to plant a tree in the Gaza Envelope before the cancellation; second, a selectivity that reverses her own accountability principle. Each one alone is suggestive; together, they converge to reveal an underlying structure.
Before the trip, Liston was asked to plant a tree in the Gaza Envelope, the communities along the Gaza border destroyed on October 7. She declined, describing the act as a “photo op” she could not perform “when so many in my district felt this personally.”
The Gaza Envelope includes Kfar Aza and Be’eri, communities attacked on October 7. A ceremonial act of commemoration at the place where Israeli families were slaughtered registered, within her framework, as propaganda adjacency. Her framework subsumed Israeli suffering into “the conflict” before it could register on its own terms. Witness became an unavailable category. That she could describe the gesture as a “photo op” admits one of two readings: she lacked knowledge of what the Gaza Envelope is, in which case her preparation contained a gap in the shape of Jewish suffering; or she had the knowledge, and the framework converted a massacre site into a propaganda venue while keeping the conversion hidden from her. Either reading implicates the framework.
The second trace is the selectivity. Liston participates in plenty of American institutions she has ample reason to criticize — the Ohio legislature shaped by a Republican majority, a federal government she opposes on Trump-era foreign policy. The disqualifying force, the sense that proximity creates complicity, activates only with Israel. Her own stated job is to ask tough questions and hold power accountable, and going on the trip was the accountability move. The framework made it unthinkable anyway, which tells us the principle is selective: corruption lives where the framework places it, and only there.
The Testimony Problem
Underneath the selectivity is a deeper issue about whose testimony the framework can hear at all. The trip would have been Liston’s encounter with direct Israeli testimony — survivors, families, witnesses at the sites where October 7 happened. The cancellation makes that encounter impossible, which tells us something the rest of the post leaves unsaid: the Jewish constituents she met in Ohio were one kind of input; survivors at Kfar Aza and Be’eri would have been another. The same framework could accommodate one kind of Jewish voice and render the other suspect in advance.
The Ohio meetings fit a known slot: Jewish voices weighing in on a political question, their concerns to be considered alongside others within the bounded structure of a constituent meeting. Survivors at Kfar Aza and Be’eri would arrive on different terms — as witnesses speaking from inside the event itself, their testimony shaped by what happened to them at the site of the massacre. That kind of testimony exceeds what the framework can hold, because Israelis have already been coded as the structurally powerful party. The coding overrides the content of testimony, including testimony about subjection to mass violence.
To register survivor testimony as power-coded — converting a Jewish position of acute vulnerability into a Jewish position of structural advantage — is the framework’s maneuver and what it runs on. Receiving survivor testimony as testimony would require the framework to recognize Jewish-Israeli suffering as suffering, and that recognition would crack the category assignments upon which the framework is built.
So, the framework filters in advance, leaving Jewish testimony admissible only when it has been mediated, curated, or translated through institutions the framework trusts. Direct Jewish testimony, survivors speaking about what was done to them, is placed under suspicion before it can be heard.
The History of a Pattern
The shape Liston’s post moves through has a history.
The historian Saul Friedländer, in his study of Nazi Germany and the Jews, coined the term “redemptive antisemitism” to name a distinct ideological formation, distinguished from ordinary Judeophobia, social resentment, and political scapegoating by the salvational meaning attached to removal. In Friedländer’s account, “the Jew” functioned as an irreducibly destructive force, a contaminating presence whose removal constituted purification itself. The perpetrators could experience themselves as saviors.
Friedländer was naming the ideology that produced the Holocaust. What follows borrows only the formal structure he isolated — contamination identified, removal experienced as restoration — and bears no equivalence to its original referent. The racial metaphysics, the eliminationist content, the state apparatus, and the violence are absent and incommensurable. The pattern travels; the historical conditions that made it lethal do not.
What happens when the same engine runs on liberal-democratic proceduralism, progressive epistemic frameworks, and the credentialing systems of contemporary political culture? It becomes a structural afterlife of the pattern Friedländer identified. The contamination is renamed as “complicity”; the purification is renamed as the responsible democratic decision to decline; and the restored self looks like a legislator grateful to her constituents for helping her see.
Friedländer’s original version required the destruction of the liberal democratic order to operate at full scale, but this version runs inside that order, on its own materials.
Why It’s Hard to See
If the pattern is so stable, why is it so hard to recognize from inside?
Imagine a riverbed. The water moves visibly, catching light; the unseen bed determines which way it can go. Arguments and deliberations are the water. The framework is the bed.
Philosopher Jürgen Habermas explains why the framework feels like ordinary thinking. He distinguishes between the lifeworld and the systemic forces that distort it from within. The lifeworld is the background through which people make sense of the world. People experience their background assumptions as common sense, as the way the world simply is. When Liston describes preparing herself against “biased one-sided perspectives,” the framework she is preparing with remains invisible to her as a framework. It is the common-sense ground from which biased perspectives become visible as biased. Before deliberation begins, that background has already organized the field of judgment: what appears as evidence, what seems relevant, and which conclusions can present themselves as reasonable.
The further question — who gets excluded before the argument begins — belongs to philosopher Nancy Fraser. She explains how deliberative procedures absorb existing power relations and reproduce them. The rules of who counts as a legitimate voice are settled before the debate begins, built into the structure of participation itself. Fraser calls this a failure of “participatory parity”: real deliberation requires arriving on equal terms, with the structural conditions of voice equally distributed. Where those conditions fail, the structure filters out certain participants; they get turned away before the debate begins. That is the mechanism that turns Liston’s preparation into procedural insulation. The Jewish constituents she met were received on her terms — as voices in a scheduled consultation, contributing perspectives to a process she would adjudicate. The structure preserved her position as the one making the categorization and reduced their position to input. The testimony she gathered counted formally; structurally, it remained inert.
From inside, exclusion has a phenomenology. Philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre’s Anti-Semite and Jew describes how the antisemite’s conclusion comes before the reasoning, producing a structure that looks like conviction and functions like immunity, registering as a feeling of clarity — finally seeing what others are too compromised to admit.
In 2.0 the same phenomenology shows up inverted: the courage is the courage to recognize one’s own complicity, to say “I was the propaganda,” to withdraw. The all-caps in Liston’s pivot — “I WAS the propaganda” — mark the moment as breakthrough recognition. The verdict feels arrived at, not delivered. That can be genuine moral bravery, and yet the structure Sartre named runs through it.
Why It Holds
The standard defenses against antisemitism, then — challenge the arguments, expose the bad faith, demonstrate the prejudice — are designed for a logic that operates in the open. They assume conscious hostility, and they assume that the argument is the place where antisemitism operates. Both assumptions fail here because the logic operates below the argument, in the interpretive framework that structures what arguments can mean. The operators are sincere, but the logic absorbs its refusals. By declaring herself “the propaganda” in order to refuse it, Liston became propaganda for the framework’s verdict that the encounter itself is contaminating.
What makes this stable is that the very things we trust most are the framework's substrate: deliberation, accountability, credentialing, epistemic justice, the conscientious legislator listening to her constituents and asking tough questions.
The framework also depends on a particular distinction: antizionism as a position separable from antisemitism. The distinction can be legitimate and sometimes sincerely held. The problem is what it does institutionally: once a position is coded as antizionist, the antisemitic structure of interpretation it may carry becomes harder to examine. That is what gives the framework access in settings that would refuse explicit antisemitism.
Anywhere both conditions hold — universities, legislatures, NGOs, the professional associations of liberal-democratic life — the pattern can reproduce itself while everyone acts in good faith and speaks in the idiom of conscience. The very institutions designed to guard against the older form of the logic have become the vehicle of a quieter one.
Sources
Fraser, Nancy. “Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy.” Social Text, no. 25/26 (1990): 56–80.
———. Scales of Justice: Reimagining Political Space in a Globalizing World. New York: Columbia University Press, 2008.
Fraser, Nancy, and Axel Honneth. Redistribution or Recognition? A Political-Philosophical Exchange. London: Verso, 2003.
Friedländer, Saul. Nazi Germany and the Jews. Vol. 1, The Years of Persecution, 1933–1939. New York: HarperCollins, 1997.
Habermas, Jürgen. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere. Translated by Thomas Burger. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1989.
———. The Theory of Communicative Action. Vol. 2, Lifeworld and System: A Critique of Functionalist Reason. Translated by Thomas McCarthy. Boston: Beacon Press, 1987.
Sartre, Jean-Paul. Anti-Semite and Jew. Translated by George J. Becker. New York: Schocken Books, 1948.
Thank you for engaging with my work. If I missed a citation or made an error, please let me know. And if you cite or share my work, I’d be grateful if you credited me.