LEFT, RIGHT — THEY ALL AGREE ON JEWS

ANTISEMITISM DIFFERS. BUT DO DISTINCTIONS MATTER?

One of these things is not like the others.

The United Kingdom, France and the government of my country, Canada, issued a statement this week, saying they are “horrified” by the military escalation in Gaza. They threatened to punish Israel if Israel doesn’t do what these governments demand.

The pressure these three governments seem determined to bring to bear on Israel is notable, given that the whole conflict would end today if Hamas surrendered. It might seem more rational to put pressure on those who started and who perpetuate the war, rather than the ones who are defending their citizens from genocidal jihadis.

But this is what we have come to expect. The indisputable assumption is that Israel — not Hamas — is responsible for the bloodshed we see in Gaza. And, as I keep harping on, if we refuse to acknowledge the cause of a problem, we will likely never get to a resolution.

This joint statement will likely have little to no impact on anything in Israel or Palestine — Israel, thankfully, will do what it has to do to reach its objective of neutralizing Hamas. And Hamas, of course, will continue to push human fodder in the way of the Israeli military.

But statements like these endanger the multicultural health of the countries that issue them and put Jews in particular danger.

By positioning Israel as the fulcrum of violence, these three governments distract the world from the reality of the situation.

Ending Hamas should be the universal goal for anyone who cares about Israelis or Palestinians.

Instead (and presumably for domestic political motives), these three countries are trying to tie Israel’s hands behind its back at the very moment when all humanitarian and democratic forces should be lining up behind the Israeli operation, just as all decent people should be on the side of Ukraine in its battle against its existential enemy.

It is interesting that the three governments — the UK, France and Canada — represent something of a political spectrum. Canada has a newly reelected middle-of-the-road Liberal government. The UK has a centre-left Labor government. And French President Emanuel Macron is whatever he is.

In sum, they are all sort of, kinda moderate Western democracies. And yet, on this issue, they are on the same side as the communists, fascists and Islamists. (As I said in my last post: I’m addressing the Western right-left dichotomy right now. Islamist Israel-hatred and antisemitism is a related but different thing.)

In their defence, of course, the excuse will be that condemnation of Israel is a nonpartisan imperative — to which I always respond: As if mobs and the madness of crowds have never been wrong before, especially when it comes to Jews.

The joint statement suggests that condemning Israel is a middle-of-the-road position. But it’s not. Anyone who does not ally with Israel in this conflict cannot claim to advance peace, stability, democracy or Western values. Condemning Israel right now, as the UK, France and Canada did this week, is to tacitly endorse Hamas. At a minimum, it gives succor to the terrorists. This is not a mainstream, moderate or “liberal” position. It is a symptom of a centre that cannot hold, a “centrist” consensus that has fallen into a trap set by the extreme left and the extreme right.

When I promised, in my last post, to explain that it doesn’t really matter whether anti-Zionist and antisemitic hysteria is a leftwing thing or a rightwing thing, I (obviously) didn’t know these three “moderate” governments were going to issue a joint statement. But it sort of underscores my point that this mania to condemn the Jewish state is not exclusive to any ideological stream.

On the one hand, there is a difference. On the other, it doesn’t really matter.

In my last post, I wrote:

Rightwing antisemites may be more likely to perpetrate hate crimes — and I am not diminishing the severity of that problem — while leftwing antisemites are more likely to pass resolutions and issue media releases.

Leaving aside whatever tiny impact this joint statement might have on the ground in Israel and Palestine, this sort of dogpiling on the Jewish state has proven impacts on Jews worldwide.

Across the planet, street activists, campus campers and foreign ministers weaponize the most dehumanizing, ferocious, incendiary language against Israel and its overseas allies (by whom, everyone knows, they mean Jews). And when anti-Jewish hate crimes spike by 670%, as they have done in my country, the culprits shrug and deny any causality. Not only that … they will shriek that you are employing “false allegations of antisemitism” to “silence” and “shut down” criticism of Israel.

While fascists like the Charlottesville tiki torch crowd don’t care if their rhetoric incites violence against Jews — in fact, they probably hope it will — leftists pretend to care about such things. But their actions betray their words.

Jews may be the only group for whom antiracists and other progressives abandon our core certainty that words can incite violence.

Consider: When a then-US congressman pointed out his leftwing opponent’s anti-Israel positions, the opponent freaked out that comparing the candidates’ stands on Israel and Palestine “puts Muslim lives in danger.” Oh my!

The idea that words can lead to grave outcomes is evident everywhere on the left, not always quite as hysterically as in that instance. For example, contest the progressive orthodoxy around gender transitioning and you will be accused of basically putting trans kids’ heads in nooses. And fair enough perhaps — we should be very careful with the tone of our language. But why does that caution end when it comes to Jews?

When maniacal language in Canada against the Jewish state leads to a six-fold increase in violence against Jews in Canada, you will be told that either there is no causal relationship or that, in effect, that’s what the Jews here deserve for supporting Jews there.

Ostensibly progressive people who condemn those who use inciting language against trans people, immigrants, refugees and other “others” in turn use the most incendiary, over-the-top, dangerous rhetoric against Israel. And then those who are inclined to violence act out on the permission given by that rhetoric.

The question of which is worse — leftwing antisemitism or rightwing antisemitism — is largely moot. The leftwing kind is permeating our social structures. The rightwing kind is most likely to burst into anti-Jewish violence. But the leftwing antisemitism permeating our body politic is fed by rightwing conspiracies and rightwing violence is roused by leftwing rhetoric. It is, in the end, six of one and a half dozen of the other.

The conspiracy theories that nurture rightwing antisemitism (“Jews are devious manipulators who seek to dominate society and control the world”) are intellectualized and retrofitted for leftwing antisemitism (“Israel seeks to dominate Palestinians and control the Middle East, and their overseas Zionist collaborators are devious manipulators who smear anyone who stands up to their powerful forces.”)

When it comes to synagogues being firebombed, Jewish schools being shot at and Jewish people being attacked on the streets, do you think it really matters to the victims whether the perpetrators are racist neo-Nazi maniacs or the wild-eyed kooks of the communist variety?

The language employed against the Jewish state has repercussions against Jews worldwide. It doesn’t matter whether or not the people who act out based on these combustible incitements have a screw loose to begin with. We know there are unstable, violence-prone people out there who will use the excuse of demonizing language against Israel to perpetrate violence against Jews and Jewish institutions.

If the victims were any group but Jews, we would govern ourselves accordingly.

In this one instance, with this one people, we scream incendiary rhetoric and place all blame on one people alone — Jews. And we let the chips fall where they may.

Rightwing? Leftwing? Middle-of-the-road? If there’s one thing they can all agree on, it’s Jews.