Why do media outlets love scared Jews?
Yes, antisemitism is spiking. But in times of crisis, it’s important to not give in to sensationalism
Hasidic men and boys gather outside of the Chabad-Lubavitch global headquarters in Crown Heights, Brooklyn. Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images
Contributing Columnist Jay Michaelson January 18, 2024
The season’s funniest headline about an unfunny subject was written by an editor at the New York Post: “ANTI-SEMENISM,” the 64-point front page headline read. Subtitle: “Surrogate lesbian couple drop donor — because he’s Jewish!”
Hilarious — but also not quite true, as it appears the couple decided not to work with the donor because of his views on Israel, not merely because he is Jewish. Why should we care? Because while this incident is hardly the most important story about the war, it is part of an important story: that of how Jewish rage is being goaded and exploited, for ideological, financial, or even emotional reasons.
American Jews of all ideological backgrounds are sincerely upset, even terrified, by the rise in antisemitism. And yet a lot of the stories we are being told are, if not false, greatly exaggerated.
To be quite clear, the increase in antisemitism is real: Jews are being targeted and attacked on the street, antisemitic motifs show up in anti-Israel protests, and some criticism of Israel has been so hyperbolic that it, at the very least, raises suspicions that antisemitism is playing a role.
But journalists and public figures are also making matters worse.
Let’s focus on the case of that sperm donor, Jay Lazarus, who said last week that “After Oct. 7 I started sharing a lot of pro-Israel material on social media and from what I understand, the couple didn’t like that.” In a long text message sent by the couple to him on Dec. 9, which Lazarus shared on Instagram, the couple went into detail.
“We are so deeply affected by the world events at the moment, particularly the war between Israel and Gaza,” they wrote. “We cannot even begin to imagine what you are going through with your heritage and deep beliefs. We are so sorry for everything that is happening.”
Then they continued, “We are down a rabbit hole with the depth of our emotions and the ethical challenges, and truth be told we feel out of our depth proceeding with this donor relationship. We are about kindness and love … We don’t have the capacity to navigate parts of your identity in this donor relationship so we are respectfully ending this now … Please hear us when we say we are deeply grateful to you.”
Lazarus has said that the rejection is “classic antisemitism,” a claim repeated (not only reported) by numerous right-wing media outlets. But is that true?
First, the couple went into the relationship knowing Lazarus was Jewish. And the one time they mentioned his “heritage,” it was in an expression of sympathy for what he was going through — the exact opposite of antisemitism.
Second, Lazarus himself said the trouble began after he shared “a lot of pro-Israel material on social media.” What, exactly? We don’t know. Personally, I’ve seen a ton of deeply objectionable “pro-Israel material” (and anti-Israel material) circulating online, from calls for genocide to denigrations of Palestinian suffering to denials of Palestinian existence and much worse. Which kind was he sharing?
But it doesn’t really matter what you or I think, because this kind of donor relationship is a particularly intimate one. I speak from some experience: my daughter came into this world because of gestational surrogacy. Her biological mother is an egg donor. And I can say that if I knew that the donor had expressed views that I considered to be unacceptable — say, for example, antisemitic attacks on Israel or Jewish people — I would not want to be in that close of a relationship with her.
That’s even more true in a donor relationship, like Lazarus’, in which the donor and recipients know one another, and intend to remain in contact. These people are potentially going to be in each other’s lives for decades. It’s totally reasonable to not want to enter into such a long-term relationship if a profound, strong, and principled disagreement exists.
True, they did say, “We don’t have the capacity to navigate parts of your identity in this donor relationship.” But in context, it’s clear that they mean what Lazarus said they meant: his expression of that identity in proud, pro-Israel posts that the couple found troubling.
This story has been widely reported — not just by the New York Post but by the Daily Mail, The Jerusalem Post, Australian Jewish News, and numerous other outlets. Almost everywhere, the story is about antisemitism.
“Sperm donor rejected due to Jewishness,” said one headline. “Outrageous reason Jewish sperm donor Jay Lazarus was rejected by couple,” said another. (Notably, most media accounts have also highlighted the fact that Lazarus is gay and the couple is lesbian. Why, exactly, does that matter?) And I have been sent the story by several friends who are not right-wing or paranoid, but who were very upset by it — or at least by the headlines.
Obviously, this is a minor story, but it’s part of a larger trend. Jewish grief, rage and fear is being monetized.
To briefly look at a second example, consider a story from the Bari Weiss-run Substack, The Free Press, with the headline “NYC Public School Wipes Israel from the Map.” Wow, that sounds terrible! But if you keep reading, you’ll learn that the objectionable map, which has since been removed, was not created by New York City schools but was part of a pre-packaged course on “Arab Culture Arts” funded, as many such cultural courses are, by a foundation known as the Qatar Foundation.
It’s inexcusable that such a map was shown in a public school; it was proper to remove it. But the headline — still up — says that the public school has wiped Israel from the map, which implies a malevolent intention on the part of the public education system in the country. Nothing in the story supports that interpretation. Conscious or not, that headline is fearmongering.
Finally, antisemitism is being exaggerated not only by the media but by the Anti-Defamation League itself, whose work is arguably more important now than ever. As reported by the Forward, the ADL now characterizes any rally with “anti-Zionist chants and slogans” as an antisemitic incident.
This is preposterous. Of course, some critical-of-Israel rallies may contain antisemitism — but others, including many led by Jewish organizations, do not.
A Forward investigation showed that 1,317 of around 3,000 incidents tracked since Oct.7 qualify under this preposterous redefinition. So while the ADL claims that antisemitic incidents have skyrocketed 360% since the same period in 2022, in fact the increase is more like 50%. Still significant, but not terrifying to the same extent.
I’ve seen firsthand how these exaggerations are frightening, alienating and enraging American Jews. I barely recognize parts of the American Jewish community right now, with people jumping to the worst possible conclusions, sharing conspiracy theories, and lashing out hysterically and furiously at any perceived slight. I can sympathize with the sense of embattlement and fear — I feel it too.
And yet: Too many of us are letting those fears dictate our actions and words, and too many people who should know better are fanning them.
Antisemitism is real. But fearmongering needs to stop.
A message from our CEO & publisher Rachel Fishman Feddersen
I hope you appreciated this article. Before you go, I’d like to ask you to please support the Forward’s award-winning, nonprofit journalism during this critical time.
We’ve set a goal to raise $260,000 by December 31. That’s an ambitious goal, but one that will give us the resources we need to invest in the high quality news, opinion, analysis and cultural coverage that isn’t available anywhere else.
If you feel inspired to make an impact, now is the time to give something back. Join us as a member at your most generous level.
— Rachel Fishman Feddersen, Publisher and CEO
