A Guide for HR Leaders for Handling Workplace Issues Surrounding the Israel-Gaza War
After my post on companies’ addressing sociopolitically fraught issues, I was approached by a number of HR leaders and consultants with questions about how to handle workplace issues that relate to the Israel-Gaza War. The following Q&A is a compilation of the inquiries I’ve received to date and my responses. (NB: In some cases, I have combined questions and answers for simplicity.)
Executive Summary
- 3 indicators that a comment is inappropriate (any one of these requires HR to take action):
- An opinion that portrays a group in a negative light
- Comment whose intent and/or context is neither positive nor neutral
- The comment is singling out a group/class/country for activities/behaviors/statements that are done by others, and/or holds a group/class/country to a different standard from others (e.g., calling the requirement to wear a hijab “problematic” fails to recognize that many religious groups require women to cover their hair, and thus the statement is Islamophobic)
2. A comment about a group can be inappropriate even if you can find a member of the group who thinks the comment is fine
3. There is no right to free speech in the workplace.
4. Generic symbols for mainstream political parties (i.e., that currently have seats in parliament, congress, or an equivalent) and flags that represent one’s heritage are acceptable. Political symbols are not. Religious articles are fine.
5. Use established, legalized names for countries and regions. Avoid adjectives for them (e.g., “occupied”). The term “Palestine” is vague, and there is no good reason for using it. The term “Palestinian” is relevant for describing people and is acceptable.
6. People who are affected directly by the war (e.g., familial casualties) should be handled with compassion, humanity, and grace regardless of anyone’s perspective about the situation.
Do you have additional questions or specific scenarios to ask about? Book a call with me here.
Q: How do I know whether a comment about Israel, Jews, or the war is anti-Semitic, and how do I know whether a comment about Muslims, Islam, [an Arab country], or the war is Islamophobic?
There are a few basic litmus tests to start with:
1. Was the comment a fact, or does it contain an opinion? If it is an opinion, does it portray a group of people in a negative light?
If it is an opinion that portrays a group in a negative light, it is likely an inappropriate statement and making it likely constitutes a bias incident.
a) Consider the statement: “Islam is a religion that preaches violence.”
At first glance, it looks like a fact, because it is short, clear, and contains at least one indisputable part (Islam is indeed a religion), which is how facts often look. But, zooming in on the last three words reveals a problem, as they constitute a broad generalization about the religion. As a rule, broad generalizations about a large entity, especially when the entity is people-based, are almost always inaccurate upon nuanced reflection. The statement above is a fine example of this, because when people who make this statement are asked to justify it, they point to statements in the Qur’an that advocate for violence and war. But, the existence of such statements does not, in and of itself, prove a broader point. In fact, the only way for those statements to have a broad implication for the religion would be if the statements themselves actually had a general scope and were not mitigated by context, and neither condition applies to any verse in the Qur’an that advocates for violence. If you were to press those who cite the Qur’an’s violence-related verses, you often find that these folks are not at all versed in the Qur’an, cannot cite the broader context in which the verses are stated, and cannot even tell you where the verses are from (many of the most commonly cited are from At-Tawba). Worse, if you ask folks who maintain the above statement whether they can quote verses from the Qur’an that advocate for peace, they are usually flummoxed and had no idea that such verses exist (for the curious, read through Al-Baqra).
As such, the statement above is an opinion, and it portrays a group (adherents to Islam) in a negative light. It is therefore a problematic statement and HR does need to deal with it.
b) Consider the statement: “Israel has killed thousands of Gazan civilians.”
This statement is a fact, and one that is readily verified by consulting multiple independent sources on both sides of the war (e.g., Israel’s Prime Minister has verified this claim). While this statement does portray Israel in a negative light, it does not, in and of itself, portray a group of people in a negative light insofar as it discusses a nation and its policies in the abstract rather than discussing the nation’s populace.
As such, this statement is a fact, and does not portray a group in a negative light. It is therefore not a problematic statement in and of itself and therefore does not warrant any action by HR.
There is a huge caveat to this, however, which is the fact that a statement like this is almost never made in a vacuum, and this leads to the next litmus test.
2. Was the comment made with neutral or positive intent and/or made in a neutral or positive context?
Statement “b” above, which refers to civilian casualties in a war, is rarely made on its own, and thus the question about whether it is problematic now turns to whether the context in which the statement was made is neutral, positive, or negative. To be sure, this is a bit of a judgment call, but there are usually statements surrounding the questionable one that give some clues, and these often contain opinions that are ostensibly being supported by other fact/opinion statements. Using the guidelines above, there are ways to assess whether other sentences uttered around the same time as the questionable statement comprise a positive, neutral, or negative tone.
Obviously, if a factual statement was made to support a context in which there is negative intent, this is a problem and is actionable for HR. But, even facts made in neutral and/or positive contexts may still be a problem. After all, why are people taking the time to discuss this in the first place? Do people actually want to be interrupted in their workday or by the proverbial watercooler with these sorts of discussions? If not, then even a positive intent can be turned into a negative context simply by forcibly subjecting people to discussions they don’t want to deal with (this connects to the question below about free speech in the workplace).
3. Is the comment singling out a group/class/country for activities/behaviors/statements that are done by many?
This is one of the primary places in which both anti-Semitism and Islamophobia show up in subtle ways, but which are very easy to catch using this double standard net. For instance, if someone is commenting about what they consider to be a negative aspect of Islam, the next question is whether that aspect is actually unique to Islam. If it is uniquely Islamic, then one could proceed to the other tests above about context and intent. If, however, the aspect is not isolated within Islam, then comes the question of whether the person is commenting about their problem with this aspect in other instances (e.g., Christianity). If so, then again one can return to the tests of context and intent. If not, however, the double standard net just caught an example of Islamophobia.
For a concrete example of this, suppose someone commented about Muslim women covering their hair. The next question is whether they are also commenting about how nuns cover their hair, and how married Jewish women cover their hair, and so on. That is, if the person has a concern about any society’s requiring that women cover their hair (especially when it does not have the same standard for men), that doesn’t reflect a bias incident. But, if they are restricting their comments to Islam when plenty of other societies/groups/religions do the same thing, they are singling out Islam and holding it to a different standard than other societies/groups/religions. That’s a double standard and they are thus engaging in Islamophobia.
A similar example is comments about Israel’s activities. For instance, there have been many comments about civilian casualties in the Israel-Gaza War, and the question about those who make them is whether they are holding Israel to a different standard than any other country. There are currently many wars occurring throughout the globe, and they, like all wars, involve civilian casualties. If someone is mentioning Israel as one example in the long list of countries at war that are killing civilians as part of the war, this is not a case of anti-Semitism. But, if someone is focusing on the death toll in Gaza and cannot name another war currently going on (or barely mention any other places where civilian casualties are occurring), that’s a double standard and a case of anti-Semitism.
The question may arise as to how this constitutes anti-Semitism when the comments are about Israel and not Jews per se, but one must then ask why Israel is being singled out. The sole unique, inherent feature of Israel is that it is a Jewish state, so if someone is singling out Israel, they are doing so because of the Jewish attribute of the country, and that’s anti-Semitism.
Along this vein, there was a question about whether it is appropriate to discuss specific events that are occurring during the war, such as Israel’s bombing of a hospital. This raises three questions:
a) Why is that being discussed at work (unless it’s part of work)?
b) Has the person bringing this up already violated one of the litmus tests above?
c) Can the person bringing up the discussion actually state the full set of facts for the situation under discussion (e.g., which hospital was bombed, whether the hospital was a base for a military attack, whether the casualties were combatants/civilians, etc.) as well as how international law defines military targets?
I openly admit that I have neither been party to, nor ever heard of, any discussion of this ilk where there was a good/neutral reason to discuss this at work, none of the litmus tests above had been violated, and the person bringing it up actually knew the rules of war and the facts of the situation. But, if you can actually find such a situation, feel free to let the conversation play out without repercussions.
Q: Is a comment still an issue if members of the group being singled out think that the comment is OK?
I can’t believe I actually get asked this question! What was even harder for me to believe was that people in HR actually used the line, “My Jewish friends/colleagues/coworkers said the comment wasn’t anti-Semitic”! Folks, if it violates the litmus tests above, it’s almost certainly a problem. And, would you accept a line like that about any other group? Seriously, would you even consider letting an employee slide because they said something like, “My Black friend said it wasn’t a racist comment” or “My lesbian friend said it wasn’t a homophobic comment”? Of course not. Most interestingly, this issue has only come up about anti-Semitism, which begs the question of why people think it’s OK to use this line about Jews when they wouldn’t use it about any other protected class.
Q: How should the company handle the issue of free speech in the workplace? What about First Amendment Rights?
Unless you work for a government institution, First Amendment Rights do not apply in the workplace.
As to free speech in the workplace, let’s just start with the reminder that it is a workplace, and people are in it to get their work done, and are likewise paid for doing work. Theoretically, any conversation that isn’t about work is improper, but obviously no one wants to work in the kind of company that subscribes to that philosophy. So, people are generally going to want to talk about what’s on their minds, current events, gossip, and the like, and that seems like a reasonable thing to permit. That said, negative statements about other people and negative generalizations about groups of people are obviously problematic, and already do get policed by HR (e.g., comments that are racist, sexually explicit, bullying, etc.). There is no reason to exclude fraught sociopolitical issues from that set, if only because discretion requires that sensitive topics be brought up privately, and “privately” means not around the watercooler, not in the cafeteria, not in the break area, and so on. It is not a big request to ask employees to ensure that any discussion about a sensitive topic be restricted to a limited audience that volunteered to participate, and that can and should be enforced by HR. After all, who wants to overhear the gory details of a colleague’s gastroenterological problems, the funky features of their private lives, or their amateur opinions on a sociopolitical issue? Since we are required to be at work, the least that the company could do is ensure that we are free to go about our business without being involuntarily disturbed by sensitive nonwork topics. To be sure, none of this precludes sensitive conversations, but it does require that anyone who wants to have sensitive conversations get a room.
This is as true for online discussions as it is for in-person discussions. What I see some companies doing is creating a set of unmonitored channels in which people are free to say what they wish, but with the very strict provisos that:
a) The content of the channel cannot be sent to other channels
b) One joins the channel at their own risk
c) One cannot hold the company responsible for what is said in the channel
d) The company can, at its discretion, hold any member of the channel responsible for what they say in the channel (provided the exercising of this discretion is consistent).
That is, if you go into an unmonitored channel and there’s a whole “Free Palestine” thread you don’t like, you have two choices: tolerate it or leave the channel. The company can, of course, place limits on this, and First Amendment guidelines are generally good for those kinds of open channels. As such, “Free Palestine” (in and of itself) would be permitted, but “Gas the Jews” (being a call to violence) would not.
That said, the risk of something objectionable being said in open channels is so high that organizations should carefully weigh the ratio of costs to benefits and proceed with caution.
Q: Should companies allow employees to wear articles of clothing and/or jewelry that relate to sociopolitical issues? (The most common examples asked about were keffiyehs, yellow ribbons, red triangles, and MAGA hats.)
Let’s start with something more generic, like a national flag or the symbol of a current, mainstream political party (i.e., one that currently has seats in the parliament/congress or its equivalent). Most people generally don’t see political party symbols as a problem, per se, but it begs the question of why someone is wearing that in the workplace. Why would anyone care whether a coworker is a member of a particular party? As such, one would have to wonder why someone is flaunting that affiliation in coworkers’ faces. I doubt highly that the answer has anything to do with work, or with any of the socializing that coworkers [writ large] want to do. As such, while I wouldn’t recommend an explicit objection to political party symbols, I think it’s reasonable to frown upon it. National flags, however, are often part of someone’s background and identity in a very fundamental way, and usually not by choice (whereas political parties are chosen in adulthood). If someone is wearing their own, that seems like a reasonable thing to do. As such, I recommend against explicit enforcement on flags and symbols of political party affiliation, as it’s too easy to be selective in an inappropriate way. If someone is wearing/showing a flag that does not reflect their personal nationality, however, this tends towards a political statement and should be handled differently (addressed below). And yes, it is a fair question to ask why someone is displaying a flag. After all, if you’re going to display it, why in the world wouldn’t you want to tell people the reason for doing so?
The yellow ribbons, and especially the yellow ribbon pins, are a unique issue in that they represent a desire for the hostages in Gaza to be released, and are very frequently worn by Jews and/or Israelis, many of whom know at least one the families of the hostages (the Jewish world is rather small, so the Kevin Bacon Game is more like Two Degrees of Separation), or who very much empathize with the fact that the hostages could easily have been from families they know. These hostages were taken in violation of international law, are being held in violation of international law, and are suffering due to their being subjected to inhuman treatment in violation of international law. As such, there’s nothing political about these yellow ribbons (as is further evident in their origins). These are meant to raise awareness and/or to serve as personal reminders about illegal, one-sided, and unequivocal human suffering that is and should be readily alleviated. Another example of this is the pink ribbon for breast cancer awareness, which is also an undisputed case of human suffering that anyone could advocate for alleviating. Indeed, some of these causes even obtain direct support from companies.
Garments that make political statements, like MAGA hats and the black and white keffiyehs, however, are a separate issue. First, though, it is important to remember that some people wear black and white keffiyehs as a symbol of their region of origin (i.e., the region that used to comprise British Mandate Palestine) — file this under “flags”. Those who are not from the region, however, would be wearing a black and white keffiyeh as a political statement (and that is assuming best intentions, which, absent other evidence, should always be the norm in the workplace). The wearing of a political statement goes beyond affiliation with a party, which can have a range of viewpoints and messages, and goes into forcing an ideology into coworkers’ faces. It is precisely here that I recommend that the line be drawn. Political and [personal] national affiliations are descriptive, and while showing them off it may or may not be puzzling to others, there is no inherent message to them. Symbols of political statements, however, are prescriptive, and contain a recommendation for a viewpoint on a non-work subject. Such viewpoints very often pertain to issues that have multiple sides and nuances, and frequently at least one of those sides is offensive to others. There is no reasonable way to select for political statements that will not make for a hostile work environment for some, so I recommend banning symbols of ideological and political statements that are not directly relevant to the work that people have to do.
A common question on this issue is where showing solidarity with a group fits in this rubric, and the answer is that showing solidarity involves raising awareness and endorsing a joining (whether in spirit, resources, action, or in fact) with a group that is in a dispute, which, by definition, involves a matter that has two competing sides. Thus, showing solidarity in the workplace on an external matter is a prescriptive political statement in some fashion, and symbols representing solidarity should be banned on those grounds. (An example of an internal matter, for contrast, is unions or groups within the organization, such as a group of staff, and since this may be relevant to work, contextual considerations must be taken into account before banning the issue on the grounds that it is political.)
When it comes to symbols like a red triangle, however, banning them is pretty much a must, as these represent a call/support for violence.
I would add here that I sometimes hear discussions about whether things like crosses, Stars of David, hijabs, kirpans, and so on, can reasonably be banned from a workplace. As these are all religious articles and/or cultural icons, they are worn solely for the benefit of the individual, are not political, and do not contain a prescriptive ideology. They are fine.
Q: What are appropriate and inappropriate names for the geographical units involved in the Israel-Gaza War?
For one thing, all of the established, legal names are just fine, such as Israel, Gaza, West Bank, Ramallah, Rafah, Haifa.
Adding adjectives like “occupied”, “free”, etc., are not formal names of places and are bannable political statements.
The term “Palestine” is the one that gets the most discussion, if only because there is no established working definition for the term and no established place with the official name “Palestine”. Some people use it to mean the West Bank, some use it to mean the West Bank and/or Gaza, some use it to mean the entire territory that includes Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza, and some are simply referring to the historical name for a region that has since been divided into several independent countries, including Israel, Gaza, and Jordan.
Historically, the term Palestine seems to come from the Greeks during the Hellenistic period, but referring to the Jewish homeland as “Palestine” goes back to the Roman Empire. After the Islamic crusades in the 7th century, the Muslims retained the Roman name for the region. The renaming of the land from “Judea” to “Palestine” was a deliberate attempt by the Romans to erase the millennia-old Jewish connection to the land, and thus the use of that term in the modern era to apply to the Jewish state of Israel, without a bilaterally and internationally recognized sovereign Palestinian state in that region, is an overt act of anti-Semitism. Historically, non-Jews have lived in the Jewish homeland regardless of what it was called, and thus referring to the land as Israel does not erase the history of the non-Jews who lived in the region (and some of them for over a millennium!). Moreover, referring to modern-day Israel as “Palestine” is an ideological political pronouncement, which I have recommended against above.
As such, I generally recommend avoiding the term “Palestine” because it is too fraught and too confusing. There may someday be a state called “Palestine”, but there isn’t today.
The term “Palestinian”, however, is perfectly fine as a descriptor of people, provided that it applies to people who either lived in the land when it was called “Palestine”, or to people who descended from said residents. Emigrants (usually Muslim) to Gaza or the West Bank and their descendants are also frequently referred to as “Palestinians”. Likewise, there are articles of clothing (such as the black and white keffiyeh), flags, and cultural features that are classified as “Palestinian”, as well. Be careful with that last one, however, as discussions about the origins of cultural features can get heated, especially in areas with as many border changes as the Middle East.
Q: How should leaders/HR folks address people whose families are dealing with challenges that pertain to the Israel-Gaza War?
The same way you handle anyone whose families are going through really rough times. This is a matter of humanity, not of politics. And frankly, who wants to hear about politics when they are mourning their dead or picking up the pieces of their homes? Such times are for compassion, humanity, and grace, regardless of anyone’s thoughts about the sociopolitical context!
Do you have additional questions? Book an appointment with me here.
The author wishes to thank Sharona Abramson and Stephanie Hauck for comments on earlier versions of this article.
