The longstanding controversy over Israel, Zionism and Palestinian rights has resurfaced on an old battleground: New Jersey.

And in the process, it is reviving another age-old question: Is Judaism a religion, an ethnicity or both?

The issue, first reported by The New York Times, involves a decision by the head of the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights to reopen a case that had been closed by the administration of former President Barack Obama.

The complaint was brought by a Zionist group at Rutgers University. It claimed that at a campus event in 2011 called “Never Again for Anyone,” a pro-Palestinian group discriminated against Jewish students by charging them an admission fee for what had been advertised as a free event. 

Organizers said they had to charge the fee to cover costs prompted by an unexpectedly large crowd, including a group of what an organizer called “150 Zionists,” some of whom were not students. 

At the time the initial complaint was filed, campuses nationwide were dealing with protests over the so-called BDS movement, which called for boycotts, divestment from Israel and sanctions on the Jewish State for its treatment of Palestinians.

When the complaint was dismissed in 2014, the Times reported, investigators from the Office of Civil Rights “did not find sufficient evidence to substantiate that any individuals were treated differently, based on national origin, with respect to imposition of the admissions fee.”

 The Zionist group appealed that ruling, and now the case has been revived by Kenneth Marcus, who was confirmed earlier this year as head of the Office of Civil Rights. His nomination drew opposition from more than 60 civil rights organizations, which said they were concerned about what they considered a narrow view of civil rights, the Times reported.

After serving in the administration of George W. Bush, Marcus founded the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, which the Times said he used “to pressure campuses to squelch anti-Israel speech and activities.”

A key passage in Marcus’ letter to Rutgers, notifying the school that the 2011 case was being revived, reveals his view of the situation. He writes that the presence of the large group of pro-Israel supporters at the event “could have been rooted in a perception of Jewish ancestry or ethnic characteristics common to the group. In cases such as this, it is important to determine whether terms such as ‘Zionist’ are actually code for ‘Jewish.’ ”

That determination is at the heart of the administration’s case. 

In the wake of increased incidents of anti-Semitism on campuses and elsewhere, groups such as the Anti-Defamation League appreciate any efforts to combat such activity. Jonathan Greenblatt, head of ADL nationwide, welcomed the move to reopen the Rutgers case, saying that in many cases, anti-Semitic incidents are couched in terms of opposition to Israel or Zionism.

“Anti-Semitism is anti-Semitism plain and simple,” Greenblatt insisted.

Karen Aroesty, regional director for the ADL locally, says that nuance is needed in cases that too often fall victim to knee-jerk responses.

“You can be a Zionist and not be Jewish,” she told the Jewish Light. “You can be a Zionist and be Jewish and be completely supportive of Israel, good bad or indifferent, and you can be Zionist and Jewish and critical of Israel.

“Complexity is so substantial that any effort to try and say one aspect is simply right or simply wrong is simplistic and doesn’t do justice to intellectual curiosity.”

That kind of curiosity needs to be recognized and welcomed, Aroesty said, particularly in higher education.

“That’s what’s so great about campuses,” she said. “Students learn about critical thinking, analysis and differences of opinion.”

Regarding the Rutgers case, Aroesty disagrees with those who feel that further investigation will hamper the free exchange of ideas on the thorny problems of the Middle East.

“People who say it’s going to kill free speech are ridiculous,” she said. “I think it can prompt debate about speech and whether it’s appropriate or used to hurt people.”

As the Rutgers case proceeds, it’s interesting to put it into the larger context of the efforts by President Donald Trump’s administration in the Middle East. Its move of the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv heartened supporters of Israel but was criticized by pro-Palestinian groups as needlessly provocative.

And the White House’s still-unfinished work on a long-promised peace plan indicates that, just as with the Rutgers situation, a viable, lasting solution can be easier to champion in slogans and speeches than it is to put on paper and get all sides’ agreement.

Rutgers may not the Middle East in miniature, but elements of both controversies certainly have parallels. In each case, balancing the concerns, rights and responsibilities of all parties will be a diplomatic trick. How they play out could go a long way toward predicting the possibility of a lasting peace, on campus and in the Mideast.