Letter to the Editor: Reckoning With the Real ‘Unspeakable’ Violence Against Jews

In the spirit of fostering open and rigorous dialogue, we are publishing the following reader response to “Antisemitism and the Unspeakable,” a guest commentary published on August 3. The opinions expressed are solely those of the author.

Dear Professor Schneider,

I am writing to express my deep concern and outrage regarding your article, “Antisemitism and the Unspeakable,” published in Yellow Scene Magazine on August 3, 2025. While I appreciate your attempt to engage with complex social issues, I find the framing and arguments in your piece troubling, particularly in how they normalize violence and distort the discourse around antisemitism. Below, I outline my objections with specific references to your text.

First, your suggestion that the word “antisemitism” has “morphed” from describing the persecution of Jews into “justifying the policies of a nation-state” and “excusing genocide” is a dangerous oversimplification. This claim dismisses the lived reality of antisemitism as a persistent form of hatred targeting Jewish people globally. For example, the Anti-Defamation League reported a 140% increase in antisemitic incidents in the U.S. from 2022 to 2023, including violent attacks, harassment, and vandalism targeting Jewish individuals and institutions. By framing “antisemitism” as a term co-opted to silence critics of Israel, you risk undermining the experiences of those facing genuine antisemitic violence, such as the June 1st attack on Jewish demonstrators in Boulder, which you reference. This attack, involving a firebombing of peaceful protesters, was a clear act of targeted hatred, yet your article questions its labeling as antisemitic, which dilutes the severity of the act.

Second, your assertion that the attack may stem from “helplessness and rage” over “atrocities” in Gaza implies a justification for violence against civilians. This is deeply problematic. The attackers targeted Jewish demonstrators advocating for Israeli hostages, not Israeli state actors. Suggesting that their actions were provoked by U.S. or Israeli policies echoes the flawed logic you critique in George W. Bush’s post-9/11 narrative—that external actions “cause” terrorism. The 9/11 attackers’ stated grievances, as you note, involved U.S. military presence, but this does not excuse their targeting of innocent civilians. Similarly, implying that rage over Gaza explains the Boulder attack normalizes violence as a response to political disagreement, which is both morally and logically untenable. Violence against civilians, whether in Boulder or elsewhere, cannot be rationalized by pointing to geopolitical frustrations.

Third, your praise for Councilmember Taishya Adams’s statement distinguishing “antisemitism” from “anti-Zionism” overlooks the practical overlap between these concepts in many violent incidents. While anti-Zionism is not inherently antisemitic, the two often converge in practice, as seen in the Boulder attack. The demonstrators were targeted for their visible support of Israel’s existence (via advocacy for hostages), not merely their Jewish identity. The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of antisemitism, adopted by numerous governments and institutions, includes “targeting of Jewish individuals or communities for their perceived connection to Israel” as a form of antisemitism. By endorsing Adams’s framing, you sidestep this reality and downplay the attack’s antisemitic nature, which risks emboldening further violence under the guise of “anti-Zionism.”

Finally, your invocation of Thomas Merton’s “unspeakable” to frame criticism of Israel as a suppressed truth is a rhetorical sleight of hand. It equates dissent against Israeli policy with the profound moral courage of figures like Martin Luther King Jr. or Malcolm X, who faced systemic violence for their activism. This comparison trivializes their struggles and obscures the fact that criticism of Israel is widely voiced in academia, media, and public discourse—hardly “unspeakable.” For instance, major outlets like The Guardian and The New York Times regularly publish critiques of Israeli actions, and campus protests, including at your own university, have been vocal. The true “unspeakable” here may be the reluctance to unequivocally condemn violence against Jewish civilians without deflecting to geopolitical grievances.

I urge you to reconsider the implications of your rhetoric. By framing antisemitism as a manipulated term and suggesting that violence may have understandable causes, you contribute to a narrative that excuses hatred and undermines efforts to combat it. I hope you will reflect on the impact of your words and engage in a dialogue that prioritizes clarity and accountability over provocative ambiguity.

Sincerely,

Marina Colacicchi