On October 7, I found myself in London amidst a protest against Israeli policies. This ... quickly spiraled into a chilling display of antisemitism. The slogans and chants, which started as calls for justice, morphed into vicious attacks on Jews.
On October 7, I found myself in London amidst a protest against Israeli policies right after the brutal attack of Hamas on innocent Israeli civilians. It was a chilling display of antisemitism. The slogans and chants, which started as calls for justice, morphed into vicious attacks on Jews. This experience was profoundly unsettling, reminiscent of the darkest days of World War II-level antisemitism. However, upon further reflection, I realized it was much worse. This was not just a localized incident but part of a global movement fueled by progressivism and radical Islamic ideologies. Witnessing this firsthand shook me to the core and forced me to confront the troubling rise of antisemitism within the international progressive movement.
The shift in attitudes among many progressive Jews was rapid and profound. As Barry Weiss recounted in an interview, the change was stark for many in the Jewish community: "I met a young woman, probably 28 years old, educated at all of the elite schools currently in the news. She said to me, 'Barry, I went to bed on October 6th as a progressive liberal, and I went to bed on October 7th as a 70-year-old Republican. What happened to me?'"
This sentiment was echoed by many who found their assumptions about allies and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict fundamentally challenged. Weiss continued, "A lot of progressive Jews looked around on October 8th and saw people marching in favor of Hamas, a group that wants them and their families dead. This realization forced many to reassess their politics."
The protests and the immediate, intense support for Hamas from parts of the progressive movement were shocking. "By October 8th, people were marching in favor of Hamas, and many progressive Jews realized that those they thought were their allies were supporting a group fundamentally opposed to their existence," Weiss noted, which was precisely what I witnessed first-hand in London on Oct. 8th. This rapid shift in perspective among the Jewish community highlighted the deepening rift and growing antisemitism within global progressivism.
The Influence of Critical Social Theory (CST)
Unfortunately, Critical Social Theory (CST) provides a framework for understanding power dynamics and systemic inequalities, offering insights into various social injustices. However, its application to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict leads to a one-dimensional narrative that frames Israel as the oppressor and Palestinians as the oppressed. This narrative can be problematic for several reasons.
Redefinition of Oppression
CST redefines oppression to include systemic and structural disadvantages, moving beyond traditional understandings of overt acts of cruelty and injustice. In the context of Israel and Gaza, this redefinition can lead to viewing all Israeli actions through the lens of oppression, ignoring the complexities and nuances of the situation. For example, the historical context of Jewish persecution and the existential threats faced by Israel are often overlooked in favor of a binary oppressor-oppressed framework. This reductionist view fails to account for the legitimate security concerns of Israel and the internal political dynamics within Palestinian territories, including the influence of groups like Hamas (Bard, 2010).
Monolithic Group Perceptions
Similar to CST’s portrayal of people of color as a monolithic oppressed group, the left often views Palestinians uniformly as victims of Israeli oppression. This perspective can oversimplify the diverse experiences and political realities within both Israeli and Palestinian communities, leading to a skewed understanding of the conflict. For instance, it disregards the voices of Palestinians who criticize their leadership or express a desire for peaceful coexistence with Israel. It also overlooks the varied political and social landscapes within Israel, where there are significant movements advocating for peace and the rights of Palestinians (Pappé, 2011).
Misleading Slogans
Popular but flawed slogans such as “Israel is a settler-colonial state” simplify and distort the historical and contemporary realities. These statements gain traction through repetition rather than careful analysis, leading to a one-sided narrative that can fuel antisemitism by framing all Israeli actions as inherently evil. The historical connection of the Jewish people to the land of Israel, recognized by international law and various historical documents, is often disregarded. Moreover, the complexities of modern statehood, including the legal and moral debates surrounding settlements and borders, are reduced to simplistic and inflammatory rhetoric (Said, 1979).
Historical and Cultural Context
To understand the left’s perspective, it is essential to consider the historical and cultural context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The land has been a focal point of contention for centuries, with deep-rooted historical, religious, and cultural significance for both Jews and Palestinians. The establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, the subsequent wars, and ongoing disputes over territories have created a complex and emotionally charged environment.
The left often emphasizes the historical grievances of Palestinians, particularly the events of 1948 (referred to as the Nakba or "catastrophe" by Palestinians) when many Palestinians were displaced. This historical narrative, combined with CST’s framework, leads to viewing the entire Israeli state as an illegitimate occupier. This perspective often neglects the Jewish historical and cultural ties to the land, as well as the ongoing threats faced by Israel from various regional actors (Morris, 2001).
CST in American Universities and the Left
In American universities, CST has significantly influenced academic discourse, often aligning with the perspectives of the left. This influence can be seen in student activism, curricula, and faculty research that frequently adopt a critical stance toward Israel. The emphasis on narratives of oppression and colonialism can create an environment where dissenting views are marginalized. Critics argue that this can lead to an academic echo chamber where only one perspective on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is tolerated. Additionally, the strong influence of CST in academia can shape public opinion and policy, as students and scholars contribute to broader societal debates (Pluckrose & Lindsay, 2020).
Ethical Considerations and Antisemitism
The left’s framing of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict often leads to ethical considerations that can foster antisemitism. Several factors contribute to this phenomenon:
Collective Blame
By framing Israel as a systemic oppressor, the left often assigns collective blame to all Israelis and, by extension, to Jews worldwide. This can lead to antisemitic attitudes and actions, as criticism of Israel morphs into hostility towards Jews. The conflation of Israeli state policies with Jewish identity at large ignores the diversity of opinions among Jews and reduces a complex issue to a simplistic and harmful stereotype (Lipstadt, 2019).
For example, during the protests I witnessed in London, placards and chants quickly shifted from criticizing Israeli policies to making broad, sweeping statements about Jews, showcasing how easily anti-Israel sentiments can turn into antisemitism.
Selective Outrage
There is often selective outrage against Israel, while other countries with far worse human rights records receive little attention. This disproportionate focus can be seen as indicative of underlying antisemitic biases. For example, while there are severe human rights abuses in countries like Syria, Iran, and North Korea, these issues often do not receive the same level of sustained scrutiny and condemnation from the left. This selective moral outrage can perpetuate a narrative that unfairly singles out Israel and Jewish people (Wistrich, 2010).
This selective focus can also detract from addressing other urgent human rights issues globally. A more balanced approach would involve advocating for human rights universally, without disproportionate emphasis on one particular conflict to the exclusion of others.
Delegitimization of Israel
The left’s narrative often involves delegitimizing Israel’s right to exist. This goes beyond critiquing specific policies and extends to questioning the legitimacy of the Jewish state itself, a stance that aligns with antisemitic ideologies. Calls for the dismantling of the Israeli state ignore the historical and legal foundations of Israel’s establishment and deny the right of Jewish self-determination. Such positions can incite hostility not only against the Israeli government but also against Jewish communities worldwide (Harrison, 2006).
The BDS (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) movement, for example, often extends beyond targeting specific Israeli policies to questioning the legitimacy of Israel's existence as a state, which can foster an environment of hostility towards Jews in general.
Critiques of Critical Theorists' Ideas
Critics of CST argue that its emphasis on power structures and oppression can lead to a deterministic view of social relations, where individuals are primarily seen as products of their social environments. This can reduce the agency of individuals and groups, portraying them as mere victims or oppressors without acknowledging their capacity for change and resilience. In the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, this can mean ignoring the efforts of peacebuilders on both sides of the complexities of regional geopolitics (Pluckrose & Lindsay, 2020).
Moreover, CST's focus on systemic critique can sometimes overlook pragmatic solutions and incremental progress. By framing issues in stark terms of justice and injustice, CST can create a moral imperative that demands absolute solutions, which may not be feasible in complex political situations. This can lead to frustration and disillusionment when such solutions are not forthcoming, potentially fueling further conflict (Furedi, 2018).
The Slogan: "From the River to the Sea, Palestine Must Be Free"
The slogan “From the River to the Sea, Palestine must be free” is often heard in protests and rallies concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This phrase implies a vision for Palestinian sovereignty that spans from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, an area that includes the entirety of Israel. Critics argue that this slogan suggests the eradication of the Israeli state, as it leaves no room for a Jewish homeland within these borders.
This slogan, while resonating with those who support Palestinian self-determination, can also be seen as a call for the elimination of Israel. This interpretation fuels fears of potential genocide against Jews in the region, aligning with extreme views that reject any form of compromise or coexistence. The phrase exacerbates tensions and undermines efforts towards a two-state solution, which aims to address the aspirations of both Israelis and Palestinians.
Twisted Narratives: Israel as Genocidal, Not Hamas
A troubling aspect of some narratives influenced by CST is the portrayal of Israel as genocidal, while groups like Hamas are framed as freedom fighters. This perspective often overlooks the actions and ideologies of Hamas, a group designated as a terrorist organization by many countries, including the United States, Israel, and the European Union.
Hamas has a documented history of using violence, including rocket attacks on civilian targets and suicide bombings. Its charter calls for the destruction of Israel and has included explicitly antisemitic language. Yet, the left's CST-influenced narrative sometimes frames Hamas’s actions as a legitimate resistance against oppression, ignoring the group's role in perpetuating violence and conflict.
Conversely, Israel’s military actions, which it asserts are in defense against these attacks, are frequently depicted as disproportionate and genocidal. This depiction ignores the context of Israel’s security concerns and the complexities of urban warfare where militant groups operate within civilian populations. The framing of Israel as the sole aggressor often disregards its right to self-defense and the efforts it takes to minimize civilian casualties despite the challenges posed by asymmetric warfare (Bard, 2010).
The Left's View on White Supremacy and Antisemitism
The left often interprets white supremacy through a CST lens, framing it as a systemic and pervasive force that oppresses marginalized groups. This framework sometimes leads to a conflation of white supremacy with Zionism, portraying both as oppressive systems that must be dismantled. Such views can fuel antisemitism by equating the Jewish state with the systemic oppression faced by people of color, thereby extending the critique of white supremacy to include Jews and Israel.
Equating Zionism with White Supremacy
The left's critique of white supremacy often includes a rejection of Zionism, viewing it as a colonialist and racist ideology. This perspective frames Israel as a manifestation of white supremacy despite the diverse ethnic backgrounds of its Jewish population. By conflating Zionism with white supremacy, the extreme left can inadvertently promote antisemitic views, portraying all Jews who support Israel as complicit in systemic oppression.
Examples from "The Squad"
Members of "The Squad," a group of progressive Democratic members of Congress, have faced accusations of antisemitism based on their extreme leftist views. For instance, Representative Ilhan Omar has been criticized for comments perceived as antisemitic, such as suggesting that support for Israel is "all about the Benjamins" and accusing Jewish Americans of having dual loyalty. These statements reflect a broader narrative within the extreme left that often frames Jewish identity and support for Israel as inherently suspect.
Representative Rashida Tlaib has also been a vocal critic of Israel, advocating for a one-state solution that many see as a call for the end of Israel as a Jewish state. Tlaib's support for the BDS movement and her frequent comparisons of Israeli policies to apartheid contribute to the perception of antisemitism within her rhetoric.
These examples illustrate how extreme leftist views on white supremacy and Zionism can lead to antisemitic sentiments, conflating legitimate critiques of Israeli policies with broader attacks on Jewish identity and the right of Israel to exist.
Biblical Principles for Understanding and Engagement
The Bible provides a solid foundation for addressing issues of justice and conflict. Here are some key principles:
Imago Dei (Image of God)
Every human being is created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27). This fundamental truth should guide our interactions and attitudes towards others, ensuring that we view every individual with dignity and respect, regardless of their background or beliefs. This principle challenges Christians to see beyond the labels of oppressor and oppressed and to recognize the inherent worth and humanity in every person.
For example, when engaging with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Christians should affirm the dignity and worth of both Israelis and Palestinians. This involves advocating for policies and actions that uphold the rights and humanity of all individuals involved.
Pursuit of Peace
Jesus calls His followers peacemakers (Matthew 5:9). In the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, this means seeking peaceful and just solutions that honor God and promote reconciliation. Peacemaking involves active efforts to bridge divides, foster dialogue, and work toward solutions that benefit all parties involved.
Christians can support peace initiatives, participate in interfaith dialogues, and advocate for diplomatic efforts that address the conflict's root causes and promote lasting peace. Peacemaking also involves praying for peace, and the leaders involved ask for wisdom and guidance in their decision-making processes.
Justice and Mercy
Micah 6:8 reminds us to act justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with God. This balanced approach is essential in addressing complex issues, ensuring we uphold justice while extending mercy and compassion. Justice involves standing against wrongdoing and advocating for the oppressed, while mercy calls for forgiveness, understanding, and reconciliation.
In practical terms, this means supporting policies and actions that address injustices faced by both Israelis and Palestinians while also promoting initiatives that seek to heal and restore relationships. It involves a commitment to truth and fairness, recognizing all parties' legitimate grievances and needs.
Practical Steps for Christians
Conclusion
The left’s perspective on the Gaza and Israel conflict, influenced by Critical Social Theory, often leads to a one-sided narrative that can fuel antisemitism. As a scholar with expertise in Islam and Islamic antisemitism and with 18 years of experience teaching and researching progressivism at the university level, I have developed my thoughts on the issue of leftist antisemitism. As Christians, it’s essential to critique and engage with these perspectives from a biblical standpoint. By understanding and addressing the redefinitions and slogans promoted by CST, we can better navigate the complexities of cultural and political polarization, promoting justice and reconciliation grounded in biblical truth. This approach helps prevent the spread of antisemitism and fosters a more just and compassionate response to the conflict.
References