Omer Bartov accused of whitewashing Israel’s enemies

Show summary Hide summary

• Who Omer Bartov is and the core claim he advances
• How the book treats Islamist groups, Iran and regional threats
  • Hamas: charter, statements and actions
• Memory and metaphor: the politics of Holocaust references
• Parsing Netanyahu’s language: “Amalek” and intent
• Antisemitism across the political spectrum: why left-right distinctions can mislead
• On selective evidence and scholarly responsibility
• Media ecosystems and the shaping of public understanding
• Where the arguments remain unresolved

Israel’s October 7 attacks ripped through any comfortable narratives about the region. Survivors, writers and citizens across Israel responded with raw, immediate fear and anger at the massacre; for many, the assault confirmed long-standing warnings about Islamist groups committed to wiping out the Jewish state. But the conversation has not ended in one direction. A new book by historian Omer Bartov has reopened old debates over how the Holocaust, antisemitism and Zionism are used in contemporary politics.

Bartov, a Brown University professor with years of academic standing and a past as an Israeli army officer, argues that invoking the Holocaust to frame Israel’s security threats is a distorting habit he calls “Holocaustism.” That argument has been taken up by critics and supporters alike, and it now sits at the center of a wider dispute: does framing Israel’s response to Hamas and other regional actors as defensive obscure Israeli wrongdoing, or does it honestly reflect a persistent, existential threat? Below, I unpack Bartov’s thesis, examine his treatment of Hamas and Israeli leaders, and outline where I believe his analysis falls short.

Who Omer Bartov is and the core claim he advances

Omer Bartov combines serious academic credentials in Holocaust studies with practical military experience in the Israel Defence Forces. Those dual roles give weight to his arguments and also subject them to closer scrutiny. In his latest book, he argues that many Israeli leaders and commentators reach for Holocaust analogies in ways that exaggerate or miscast contemporary politics. He sees a pattern in which memory of Nazi persecution becomes a political tool used to deflect criticism and to justify harsh policies, especially in Gaza.

That central claim—memory turned into strategy—is provocative and warrants careful debate. But the force of any such critique depends on whether it fairly represents the threats Israel faces and whether it accounts for the tone and purpose of leaders’ rhetoric in context.

How the book treats Islamist groups, Iran and regional threats

Bartov’s skepticism about Holocaust-based rhetoric extends to his reading of Israel’s enemies. He suggests that labeling Hamas, Hezbollah or Iran primarily in genocidal terms is part of a political framing that simplifies a complex conflict. Critics say this approach downplays the explicit hostility of certain actors toward Israel.

Hamas: charter, statements and actions

• The Hamas charter of 1988 contained deeply antisemitic language and has been widely cited as evidence of the movement’s intent toward Jews and Israel.
• In 2017 Hamas issued a political document that softened some phrases, but the original charter has not been formally rescinded and remains a reference point for the group’s ideology.
• Operationally, Hamas leaders have publicly celebrated violence and, in some instances, signaled willingness to carry out or repeat attacks on Israeli civilians.

Minimizing these elements and treating Hamas as merely another political actor risks ignoring its ideological roots and some of its stated aims. When a group publicly promotes the elimination of a people or state, that posture bears on how policymakers and the public evaluate defensive measures.

Memory and metaphor: the politics of Holocaust references

One of Bartov’s key points is that the Holocaust has been invoked so frequently in Israeli and diaspora discourse that it sometimes becomes a rhetorical shortcut. Critics of that rhetorical usage argue it can flatten ethical distinctions and make self-criticism difficult. Supporters counter that Holocaust memory is not a rhetorical prop but a legitimate frame for understanding existential threats.

The real question is whether leaders who reference the Holocaust or biblical enemies are calling for indiscriminate violence or using deep historical analogies to rally and warn their societies. Context matters: metaphors drawn from Jewish history often serve to signal the severity of a threat rather than to outline policy steps toward annihilation.

Parsing Netanyahu’s language: “Amalek” and intent

A flashpoint in the debate has been a speech by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in late October 2023, when he invoked the biblical memory of Amalek. Opponents seized on that line to allege genocidal intent toward Palestinians. Proponents and many analysts countered that the reference functioned as historical metaphor aimed at an explicitly violent opponent—Hamas—not Gaza’s civilian population.

• Netanyahu’s speech also included repeated assurances about the IDF’s efforts to avoid civilian harm.
• Religious imagery in political speeches often compresses complex moral claims into a few charged words; the danger lies in reading those words out of the fuller context.

Interpreting metaphors as policy is risky. A leader’s use of biblical language does not by itself equate to a plan for genocide, though critics have every right to interrogate the consequences of rhetoric that may encourage dehumanizing attitudes.

Antisemitism across the political spectrum: why left-right distinctions can mislead

Bartov emphasizes the long history of right-wing antisemitism, and rightly so: reactionary and fascist movements have repeatedly targeted Jews. But focussing solely on the right risks obscuring another strand of antisemitism that appeared in parts of the left during the 19th and early 20th centuries—an anti-Jewish strain tied to critiques of capitalism and liberalism.

• Some early socialist thinkers conflated “Jewishness” with finance and modern economy, producing an ugly rhetoric that Marx-era and later socialists had to confront.
• Figures such as August Bebel condemned anti-Jewish sentiment on the left, labeling it a perversion of socialist principles.

Antisemitism can mutate into different political idioms. Ignoring one vector because another appears more visible today can blind analysis to how prejudices adapt to changing political language.

On selective evidence and scholarly responsibility

Bartov’s stature means his conclusions attract attention beyond academic circles. He has published widely and participated in prominent media discussions, often aligning with progressive critics of Israeli policy. That visibility gives his interpretations influence—but it also raises questions about selective emphasis.

A balanced scholarly account should weigh both the documented threats posed by militant groups and the legitimate critiques of Israeli policy that concern civilian suffering in Gaza. Where a scholar chooses to emphasize one set of facts over others, readers should expect transparent reasoning and engagement with counter-evidence.

• Which archival sources and contemporary statements are emphasized or omitted?
• How are metaphors and historical comparisons contextualized?
• Are violent declarations by non-state actors treated differently than violent rhetoric by state actors?

Media ecosystems and the shaping of public understanding

The debate around Bartov’s book also exposes how news outlets, social platforms and academic commentary shape public perceptions. International broadcasters, opinion podcasts and social feeds each carry different frames—some amplify Israel’s security narrative, others foreground Palestinian suffering. In that cacophony, simplified binaries often win the day.

Readers benefit from sources that do three things:

1. Provide context for charged language and historical references.
2. Distinguish between metaphorical rhetoric and concrete policies.
3. Report verified actions and statements from both state and non-state actors.

Where the arguments remain unresolved

There is no easy way to reconcile competing perceptions of threat with competing demands for humanitarian restraint. Bartov forces a conversation about whether Holocaust memory can be co-opted in ways that close off criticism. At the same time, his critics rightly insist that downplaying explicit, documented threats from groups and states across the region risks misrepresenting the security environment Israel faces.

The tension between memory, security and moral responsibility persists, and each new round of violence reopens these questions in more urgent terms.

Daniel Ben-Ami is an author and journalist who runs Radicalism of Fools, a website dedicated to rethinking antisemitism. Israel: What Went Wrong, by Omer Bartov, is published by Fern Press.

You might also like:

• Starmer and Corbyn accused of crocodile tears after controversy
• Holocaust: critics accuse Mehdi Hasan of politicizing the tragedy
• Trump deals devastating blow to anti-Israel sentiment
• Ezra Klein’s comments on anti-Zionism spark heated criticism
• Antisemitism and anti-Israel sentiment are spreading in classrooms