The much more recent Pearl Harbor moment of our generation was 9/11. And despite there being some anti-Muslim sentiment, no one murdered two young Saudi diplomats, no one drove an explosive-laden car into a Muslim daycare center, no one threw Molotov cocktails at a vigil, no one picketed outside NYC mosques -- just a few high profile examples of the anti-Jew hate and violence unleashed after Oct 7.
This is true, and honestly I’ve been getting really irritated at people trying to pump up the idea of anti-Arab racism and Islamophobia in America in the same context as the rise of antisemitism. There was that wrenching story of the Palestinian boy in Chicago (I think?) getting stabbed by his parents’ landlord but apart from that I am completely unaware of this supposed rise in anti-Arab animus. People I know in Minneapolis have tried to conflate the hostility the current administration has toward Minnesotan Somalis as part of it but I really see zero connection between these two things. Maybe someone could convince me otherwise with evidence but I just haven’t seen it.
Under what circumstances *would* a person living in the United States and trying to be a responsible citizen by being well-informed be justified in developing the opinion the Israel has acted wrongly? It seems that you have turned Israel into a state that is right-by-definition. If nothing can count against Israel without calling into question the good faith of people who might believe Israel has acted wrongly, then Israel has no moral duty to act in a way than is other than as it has. This is the definition of a self-sealing argument—granted that I’m understanding you correctly. I do have to admit I struggled with the relevance of a lot of this article but I’m genuinely willing to believe that is just me.
That is a fair question and I won’t pretend my standards aren’t high, but I turn the question to you or anyone: if we’re making accusations of genocide, war crimes, etc, should the standards of evidence and being informed NOT be incredibly high? I look at it like accusations of rape and murder: if it’s just a claim based on gut feelings derived from shocking and heartbreaking imagery and photos, that’s by definition slander. Obviously a country is not a person, but a country and its government, however odious, are made up of people. That’s why as awful as I find Putin, you won’t catch me accusing him of genocide without direct proof. It’s also why I don’t accuse Bibi of being genocidal, even as I find him odious in many ways, and probably morally culpable in creating conditions that let 10/7 as evil and horrifying as it was (as in, intel failures, internal political bickering, empowering ethnic cleansers in the West Bank, etc).
In terms of where the bar should be practically speaking, the bare minimum I’d ask of anyone opining on Israel’s evil is citing sources; citing where their conclusion is derived from, namely. Because it’s not one’s own eyes and ears; it never is unless that’s someone’s job (and even then, that’s problematic enough). More ideally, I’d want people to actually demonstrate a broad understanding of the region’s history, the history of pan-Islamism and Arab nationalism, and Zionism, at least for the past 100 years. That’s actually not that hard, at least for someone invested; one could read a staunchly Zionist monograph, a staunchly Arab nationalist monograph, and a more nuanced New Israeli history monograph and be pretty well-informed.
I’m not seeing that bar being met. And while one could say that’s not reasonable, I’d reply with of course it’s not; it’s also not reasonable to form opinions on complex history and geopolitical issues when it’s not one’s job to do so. And yet here we are, with legions of opinions formed by TikTok, Twitch streamers, and maybe an occasional New York Times article. One could even say that’s normal; I did kind of suggest that in the essay. But normal doesn’t mean “fine”; that’s a fallacy on its own. The worst thing I could say about my own argument here is that it’s probably naive and even a bit elitist. So be it I guess. I don’t think Israel can do no wrong as I’ve suggested both in this comment and elsewhere. I think we just overrate their significance when it comes to unwanted influence.
The Democratic Party has a long history of the worst ideas, slogans and policies percolating up the chain from Marxists to Progressives and from Progressives to Liberals. This was the case for open borders/"Abolish ICE", decriminalization along racial lines/"Defund the Police", and racist discrimination under the guise of "Antiracism"/DEI. The whole obsession with AIPAC is old school Elders of Zion level "Jews control the US/World" antisemitism.
And now the same feeder of pathetically terrible ideas has turned the Democrats into the US Anzi Party. Progressivism is an intolerant quasi-religion, and progressives are far closer to the 15th-17th century Catholic Church and its Inquisition. Both were obsessed with forcefully converting "Bad Jews" (Zios in this case). Progressives are conditionally okay with "Good Jews", that is ones who have no attachment to their people, religion, and support, like other Anzis, the destruction of Israel, and the genocide and ethnic cleansing of 7.7 million Israel Jews and any diaspora Jews who don't repent.
Thank you for this. Despite what you are writing about, and I think it will get worse, I am happy that I live here in the USA and not in Canada or Europe. As Bari Weiss put it after the Tree of Life, Jewish people had a vacation from history since WW2. This country is a wonderful place to live in, for everyone and especially Jews. But I think it will be a different world going forward. But there is nowhere else I would rather live. I think the Pikers and the Carlsons are a fringe, despite their numerous enablers and excusers.
Honestly, having it stay fringe is fine with me. But the effort to placate those fringes by the likes the New York Times (in the case of Piker) and everyone gathering around Carlson as if he's some principled avatar of true Christian righteousness is so persistent that I couldn't help but feel a little pessimistic (hence this essay). Like I said above--and this is faint praise--at LEAST the far right has the common decency to just own their bigotry (until they're called out at least). It's those on the other side of the aisle that yearn for the high-minded justification so blatantly.
Alexander, it is always good to hear you on TFC
The much more recent Pearl Harbor moment of our generation was 9/11. And despite there being some anti-Muslim sentiment, no one murdered two young Saudi diplomats, no one drove an explosive-laden car into a Muslim daycare center, no one threw Molotov cocktails at a vigil, no one picketed outside NYC mosques -- just a few high profile examples of the anti-Jew hate and violence unleashed after Oct 7.
This is true, and honestly I’ve been getting really irritated at people trying to pump up the idea of anti-Arab racism and Islamophobia in America in the same context as the rise of antisemitism. There was that wrenching story of the Palestinian boy in Chicago (I think?) getting stabbed by his parents’ landlord but apart from that I am completely unaware of this supposed rise in anti-Arab animus. People I know in Minneapolis have tried to conflate the hostility the current administration has toward Minnesotan Somalis as part of it but I really see zero connection between these two things. Maybe someone could convince me otherwise with evidence but I just haven’t seen it.
Under what circumstances *would* a person living in the United States and trying to be a responsible citizen by being well-informed be justified in developing the opinion the Israel has acted wrongly? It seems that you have turned Israel into a state that is right-by-definition. If nothing can count against Israel without calling into question the good faith of people who might believe Israel has acted wrongly, then Israel has no moral duty to act in a way than is other than as it has. This is the definition of a self-sealing argument—granted that I’m understanding you correctly. I do have to admit I struggled with the relevance of a lot of this article but I’m genuinely willing to believe that is just me.
That is a fair question and I won’t pretend my standards aren’t high, but I turn the question to you or anyone: if we’re making accusations of genocide, war crimes, etc, should the standards of evidence and being informed NOT be incredibly high? I look at it like accusations of rape and murder: if it’s just a claim based on gut feelings derived from shocking and heartbreaking imagery and photos, that’s by definition slander. Obviously a country is not a person, but a country and its government, however odious, are made up of people. That’s why as awful as I find Putin, you won’t catch me accusing him of genocide without direct proof. It’s also why I don’t accuse Bibi of being genocidal, even as I find him odious in many ways, and probably morally culpable in creating conditions that let 10/7 as evil and horrifying as it was (as in, intel failures, internal political bickering, empowering ethnic cleansers in the West Bank, etc).
In terms of where the bar should be practically speaking, the bare minimum I’d ask of anyone opining on Israel’s evil is citing sources; citing where their conclusion is derived from, namely. Because it’s not one’s own eyes and ears; it never is unless that’s someone’s job (and even then, that’s problematic enough). More ideally, I’d want people to actually demonstrate a broad understanding of the region’s history, the history of pan-Islamism and Arab nationalism, and Zionism, at least for the past 100 years. That’s actually not that hard, at least for someone invested; one could read a staunchly Zionist monograph, a staunchly Arab nationalist monograph, and a more nuanced New Israeli history monograph and be pretty well-informed.
I’m not seeing that bar being met. And while one could say that’s not reasonable, I’d reply with of course it’s not; it’s also not reasonable to form opinions on complex history and geopolitical issues when it’s not one’s job to do so. And yet here we are, with legions of opinions formed by TikTok, Twitch streamers, and maybe an occasional New York Times article. One could even say that’s normal; I did kind of suggest that in the essay. But normal doesn’t mean “fine”; that’s a fallacy on its own. The worst thing I could say about my own argument here is that it’s probably naive and even a bit elitist. So be it I guess. I don’t think Israel can do no wrong as I’ve suggested both in this comment and elsewhere. I think we just overrate their significance when it comes to unwanted influence.
The Democratic Party has a long history of the worst ideas, slogans and policies percolating up the chain from Marxists to Progressives and from Progressives to Liberals. This was the case for open borders/"Abolish ICE", decriminalization along racial lines/"Defund the Police", and racist discrimination under the guise of "Antiracism"/DEI. The whole obsession with AIPAC is old school Elders of Zion level "Jews control the US/World" antisemitism.
And now the same feeder of pathetically terrible ideas has turned the Democrats into the US Anzi Party. Progressivism is an intolerant quasi-religion, and progressives are far closer to the 15th-17th century Catholic Church and its Inquisition. Both were obsessed with forcefully converting "Bad Jews" (Zios in this case). Progressives are conditionally okay with "Good Jews", that is ones who have no attachment to their people, religion, and support, like other Anzis, the destruction of Israel, and the genocide and ethnic cleansing of 7.7 million Israel Jews and any diaspora Jews who don't repent.
Unfortunately audience capture is becoming a bigger factor, and that is a worrying trend.
Thank you for this. Despite what you are writing about, and I think it will get worse, I am happy that I live here in the USA and not in Canada or Europe. As Bari Weiss put it after the Tree of Life, Jewish people had a vacation from history since WW2. This country is a wonderful place to live in, for everyone and especially Jews. But I think it will be a different world going forward. But there is nowhere else I would rather live. I think the Pikers and the Carlsons are a fringe, despite their numerous enablers and excusers.
Honestly, having it stay fringe is fine with me. But the effort to placate those fringes by the likes the New York Times (in the case of Piker) and everyone gathering around Carlson as if he's some principled avatar of true Christian righteousness is so persistent that I couldn't help but feel a little pessimistic (hence this essay). Like I said above--and this is faint praise--at LEAST the far right has the common decency to just own their bigotry (until they're called out at least). It's those on the other side of the aisle that yearn for the high-minded justification so blatantly.