Robert Kraft was right about Macklemore, the explanation was all wrong - opinion

The problem was not Robert Kraft’s decision. The problem is how we explain it.

We removed the messenger from the stage without confronting the lie he was spreading. We focused on Macklemore–his rhetoric, his history, the hurt his words cause–when the far greater threat is the message itself. And in doing so, we inadvertently helped create precisely the narrative Macklemore and his defenders wanted.

Now the story practically writes itself: Macklemore dared to “speak truth to power.” He said what others supposedly do not want Americans to hear, and for his courage, a Jewish billionaire and other venue owners took away his microphone. Macklemore becomes the martyr. His cancellation becomes evidence of his righteousness. And Jews assume precisely the role his rhetoric already assigns us: morally compromised and willing to use our influence to suppress anyone brave enough to expose an uncomfortable truth.

We should stop defending ourselves against the accusation and start challenging the accusation itself.

Macklemore did not belong on that stage because he was using it to spread hateful lies about the Jewish state. He was telling an audience that the world’s only Jewish state is committing “genocide” and practicing “apartheid,” presenting those accusations not as arguments to defend, but as settled truths.

That is not the same as supporting Palestinians or criticizing Israel. Macklemore remains free to say what he believes. But freedom of speech does not entitle anyone to someone else’s microphone, particularly an entertainment stage before thousands who bought tickets for a concert rather than to hear a political polemic.

There is also a bitter irony in the outrage over Macklemore being “canceled.” Where was this defense of artistic freedom when American Jewish musician Matisyahu had concerts canceled after activists targeted venues over his support for Israel, creating security and staffing concerns? Macklemore did not lose his place because of his identity. He lost that stage because of what he chose to do with it.

The accusations coming from more than Macklemore

And this is much bigger than Macklemore. He did not invent these accusations. He is simply their latest celebrity messenger.

“Genocide.” “Apartheid.” “Ethnic cleansing.” “War criminal.” We hear these charges on college campuses, across social media, in newsrooms, entertainment, politics, and our institutions. Repeated often enough, they enter our discourse not as extraordinary accusations requiring proof, but as established facts requiring allegiance.

That is where the Jewish community has missed something fundamental. We have become very good at identifying antisemitism and condemning those who traffic in it. We have been far less willing to confront the lies that make the antisemitism possible.

Dara Horn has articulated something essential about antisemitism: it does not operate simply as hatred or intolerance toward Jews. It operates through a recurring lie–that Jews are responsible for destroying whatever a society holds most dear.

That distinction changes the prescription. If we treat antisemitism primarily as intolerance, we answer it with tolerance: more education, dialogue, and opportunities to understand Jews. Those things have value. But you cannot cure a lie by teaching people to become more tolerant of the people being lied about. You have to challenge the lie.

And we must confront the genocide lie more boldly. Israel is not committing genocide. The accusation is false and outrageous.

Genocide is not a synonym for a terrible war, a high civilian death toll, or even violations of the laws of war. It is a specific crime requiring intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group as such. Intent is not incidental to the definition. It is essential.

Israel’s conduct matters too. John Spencer, chair of urban warfare studies at West Point’s Modern War Institute, has argued after studying the Gaza campaign that Israel has implemented more measures to prevent civilian harm than any military he has studied. That does not mean every Israeli decision was correct or every strike justified. But warnings, evacuations, and extensive civilian-harm precautions are evidence that must be confronted before accusing a country of intending to destroy a people.

The genocide accusation is a modern blood libel.

The original blood libel accused Jews of deliberately murdering Christian children. Its power came from transforming hatred into righteousness. Those who believed it did not imagine themselves persecuting innocent Jews. They imagined themselves protecting innocent children from evil.

The moral vocabulary changes. The mechanism remains hauntingly familiar. Today, someone can accuse the Jewish state of deliberately destroying a people and still sincerely insist–as Macklemore has–that he has nothing against Jews. He may genuinely believe he is standing against evil. That is precisely what makes the libel so dangerous.

Concern for Palestinian human rights, advocacy for Palestinians and criticism of Israel are not antisemitic. Palestinian suffering is real. Innocent civilians have died, and where individuals commit crimes, they should be held accountable.

But none of that establishes genocide. And compassion does not demand self-flagellation or self-erasure.

Jews should not have to accept the lie that Israel is committing genocide to prove that we care about Palestinian lives. We should not have to sever our connection to Israel to establish our moral credibility or repeat a blood libel against the Jewish state to demonstrate our decency.

Yet that is increasingly the moral test imposed upon us.

Accept that the world’s only Jewish state is committing one of humanity’s gravest crimes, and you can remain among the righteous. Challenge that premise, defend Israel against the charge, or refuse to distance yourself from the Jewish state, and suddenly your disagreement becomes complicity–and your connection to Israel becomes evidence against you.

That is not incidental to the antisemitism. It is how the antisemitism works.

Some argue that Netanyahu’s government or particular Israeli policies have made defending Israel more difficult. But difficulty does not turn an accusation into a fact. We do not have to support Netanyahu or defend every Israeli action. And distancing ourselves from Israel will not make American Jews safer; it only reinforces the dangerous fiction that Jewish safety depends on Jewish behavior.

We can defend Palestinian humanity without surrendering our own. We should not disavow Israel to demonstrate our decency or accept collective guilt for a crime Israel did not commit.

The answer to a blood libel is not to prove that Jews are good people. It is to expose the blood libel as a lie.

Robert Kraft is a hero for standing up. Now it is our job to stand with him–and fight the lies.