American court ruling: An attack in the name of "anti-Zionism" may be considered antisemitic
A decision by a federal judge in Washington touches on one of the burning controversies surrounding antisemitism in the US: where the line is drawn between opposition to Israel and harming Jews. The judge refused to accept the claim that attacking a Jewish woman wearing an Israeli flag was merely a protest against Israel: "An assault is not a legitimate form of protest."
A new decision by a federal court in Washington directly touches on one of the prominent controversies in the American discourse surrounding antisemitism and Israel: whether an action presented as anti-Israel or anti-Zionist can, under certain circumstances, also be considered legally as harming Jews due to their identity.
Federal Judge Trevor McFadden rejected last night (Tuesday) a significant part of the motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed by Kymara Samerroll, a Jewish pro-Israel activist, after she claimed she was attacked during a demonstration in Washington while wearing an Israeli flag.
In his decision, the judge determined that Samerroll had presented at this stage a sufficient claim for discrimination under Section 1981 of the federal Civil Rights Act, in a way that allows the main part of the lawsuit to continue to be heard.
The decision gives special significance to the possible overlap between the symbols of the State of Israel and Jewish identity. McFadden focused on the Star of David appearing in the center of the Israeli flag and determined that it also serves as a symbol of the Jewish people.
According to him, intentionally pulling on an Israeli flag tied around a Jewish woman's neck to choke her is "direct evidence of racial discrimination," and an assault involving a symbol identified with a protected group under the law can serve as significant evidence of a discriminatory motive.
The incident occurred in November 2024, during a demonstration near the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington. According to the complaint, Samerroll was wearing an Israeli flag as a cape. Janine Ali, who participated in the anti-Israel demonstration, approached her from behind and pulled forcefully on the flag, which was tied around her neck. As a result, Samerroll claims, she was briefly choked. She called the police and Ali was arrested.
One of the defense's arguments touched exactly on the dividing line that has been at the center of a broad public debate in the United States in recent years: opposition to the State of Israel is not necessarily antisemitism. The defense argued that Ali's actions stemmed from her opposition to Israel and not from hostility toward Jews.
However, McFadden refused to accept this argument as grounds for dismissing the lawsuit. According to him, it is a "stretch" for a person to describe pulling on a flag tied around a person's neck as an expression of opposition to a state's policy. "An assault is not a legitimate form of protest," he ruled.
The judge added that the defendant did not have, according to the allegations presented to him, a reason to assume that Samerroll was connected to the Israeli government. Therefore, it is reasonable to view the incident as an assault on a Jewish woman who wore the flag as an expression of her identity and heritage. The legal meaning of the decision is not that all opposition to Zionism or criticism of Israel becomes antisemitism.
However, it places a significant limitation on the possibility of using the distinction between the two as a blanket defense: when a Jew is attacked while focusing on an Israeli symbol that is also a Jewish symbol, the claim that the act was directed "only against Israel" does not necessarily negate a claim of anti-Jewish discrimination.
The National Jewish Advocacy Center, which represents Samerroll, defined the decision as a "huge victory." The organization's chairman, Mark Goldfeder, focused exactly on this meaning of the ruling. "The excuse 'it's just anti-Zionism and not antisemitism' was raised, argued, and rejected. On the record," Goldfeder wrote on X.
According to him, defendants who try to raise a similar argument in future cases may find this decision used against them as a legal precedent.
McFadden also rejected a request to reconsider a temporary restraining order issued earlier that requires Ali to stay away from Samerroll, and also rejected most of the arguments with which the defense sought to dismiss the lawsuit. However, he did dismiss one cause of action that dealt with intentional infliction of emotional distress.
The decision relies on previous American case law that recognizes Jews as a protected group under certain federal civil rights laws. From the perspective of the organization representing Samerroll, this is further reinforcement that legal protections against racial discrimination also apply to Jews.
However, the proceedings themselves have not yet ended, and the court has not decided that Ali indeed acted from an antisemitic motive or that she is liable for the claims attributed to her. The decision was given at a preliminary stage and its meaning is that the main parts of Samerroll's claims are strong enough legally to continue to be heard.
And yet, precisely in the American discourse where the line between anti-Zionism and antisemitism is at the center of an ongoing political and legal debate, the decision provides a significant determination: presenting an act as anti-Israel does not automatically grant it immunity from the claim that it also discriminates against Jews.
