By John Q. Hosedrinker America’s antisemitism watchdogs are disproportionally focusing on left-wing anti-Zionists, minimizing if not ignoring white supremacists and Christian nationalists active in Republican circles. This institutional malpractice is exacerbated by recent events, which have fueled antisemitic conspiracy theories across the political spectrum. Consequently, communal institutions are failing to address the widespread antisemitism and its proximity to power within the right-wing nationalist movement. The author urges a course correction before the crisis escalates further.
Read the original article here
It seems there’s a growing concern, and perhaps a growing reality, that antisemitism is on the rise within right-wing circles, yet there’s a perception that the established Jewish leadership is disproportionately focused on combating antisemitism from the left. This dynamic feels particularly acute right now, and understanding it requires looking at the nuances of how these different forms of prejudice manifest and who they are perceived to be directed at.
Historically, antisemitism has long been a fixture on the right, and this isn’t a new phenomenon. For many on the right, their interest in Israel often stems from specific interpretations of end-times prophecies, particularly within Christian Zionist movements, rather than a genuine concern for the well-being of Jewish people themselves. In fact, for some, these groups harbor a deep-seated animosity towards Jews. There’s a stark parallel drawn to historical instances where individuals joined problematic movements not out of direct hatred, but due to other motivations like nationalism, economic anxiety, or political opportunism, ultimately lending their support to harmful ideologies. The core point is that regardless of individual motivations, participation contributes to the larger problem.
The concept of the “Jewish establishment” often being tied to the Israeli government, which itself can be right-wing, adds another layer of complexity. This alliance with certain political factions in the US, especially those who may support actions perceived by some as detrimental to Palestinian populations, creates a difficult position. Christian Zionism, while claiming to support Israel, is seen by some as inherently dehumanizing and even antisemitic, yet it’s a useful political ally for the Israeli government. This situation leaves some feeling caught in the middle, where one segment of society might actively wish them harm, while another, though perhaps critical of certain political actions, is seen as more approachable for dialogue.
It’s often observed that while many Jewish individuals tend to vote for left-leaning parties, the right-wing’s focus on Israel seems to be more about political alignment and religious prophecy than a genuine affinity for Jewish people. Conversely, the left is sometimes seen as more appreciative of Jewish people, but critical of the state of Israel. This distinction highlights a crucial difference: the right is perceived as harboring a more direct hatred of Jewish people, while the left’s critiques are often framed as being directed at Israeli policies and actions.
This leads to a paradox where the left’s arguments, which often center on legitimate grievances against Israel, might actually require more attention. These arguments, rooted in valid criticisms, have the potential for broader political appeal. The perceived focus on these criticisms over outright antisemitism from the right might stem from a concern that they are more insidious and harder to combat. There’s also a critique that some Jewish organizations, like the ADL, have been criticized for their response to right-wing antisemitism, citing instances like not being vocal enough about figures like Elon Musk.
The argument is made that the right-wing has been historically antisemitic and perhaps has little to gain from alienating Jewish communities in ways that might matter to them politically. Their antisemitism is seen as more ingrained and less susceptible to change. In contrast, the left, which has historically been associated with anti-racism, is viewed as a group that could potentially be influenced and persuaded to reject antisemitic sentiments. This perspective suggests that focusing on stamping out antisemitism on the left is a more strategic approach, as it targets a group that might be more receptive to reason and education.
Furthermore, the notion that the “Jewish establishment” is inherently right-wing is also prevalent in discussions. This suggests that their focus on the left might be a political calculation, prioritizing concerns that align with their own political leanings over the more pervasive antisemitism coming from the right. The critique here is that the focus on the left is a matter of political convenience or alignment, rather than an accurate assessment of where the most significant threats lie.
The idea that the right-wing’s antisemitism is not a major concern for Israel, and in fact may even be beneficial, is another viewpoint. The narrative is that Israel’s existence as an ethno-state, constantly in a state of perceived conflict, justifies its actions and radicalizes its population. In this view, widespread global animosity toward Israel simply reinforces its narrative of needing to “defend” itself, mirroring historical patterns of how perceived external threats can fuel internal nationalism and militancy.
There’s a sentiment that the “antisemitism shield” is weakening, and mainstream criticism of Israel is becoming more accepted. The implication is that previously, any criticism of Israel was easily dismissed as antisemitic, but this is no longer as effective. The perceived focus on the left by the “establishment” is seen by some as a deliberate strategy to suppress criticism of Israel, rather than genuinely addressing antisemitic threats. Some argue that certain pro-Israel groups have even actively funded figures known for anti-Muslim rhetoric, suggesting a tactic of using right-wing antisemitism as a tool against other minority groups, creating a complex and hypocritical situation.
The argument is also made that the left’s critiques of Israel, while potentially legitimate, can sometimes morph into or be conflated with antisemitism, particularly when fueled by social media and radicalization stemming from the actions of the Israeli government. This can lead to confusion where genuine criticism of policy gets entangled with prejudice against Jewish people.
It’s also noted that on the ground, particularly in places like New York City, left-wing antisemitism is perceived as more visible and immediate than right-wing antisemitism. Examples cited include celebrations of attacks and the denial of atrocities by individuals associated with the left, which are seen as far more concerning than abstract right-wing ideologies. This localized perception contrasts with the broader, more systemic antisemitism attributed to the right.
The focus on the left is further explained by the idea that the left has a greater potential to influence policy regarding Israel, such as advocating for defunding or disengagement. The right, due to its Christian Zionist base, is seen as less likely to change its stance on Israel, making the left the more pressing concern for those who prioritize maintaining the current relationship. The role of wealthy and influential Jewish individuals is also brought into question, with some suggesting they may prioritize their own interests or political alignments over the broader fight against antisemitism, potentially even aligning with or overlooking antisemitic elements on the right if it serves their purposes.
Finally, the argument that both the far-left and far-right antisemitism, while different in manifestation, can lead to the same outcome – the delegitimization and dehumanization of Jewish people – is a significant concern. The failure to acknowledge Israel’s security concerns and its history of defensive wars is seen as a factor that fuels this animosity from both extremes. The observation that some who claim to be anti-Zionist only target Jews and synagogues, rather than evangelical Christians who are also staunch Zionists, raises questions about the true nature of their opposition. This suggests a selective targeting that points towards a deeper animosity towards Jewish identity itself, rather than solely political opposition to the state of Israel.