Antisemitism should fit naturally within the progressive understanding of overlapping oppression. Instead, Jews are too often cast as the source of everything the coalition exists to oppose.
Where I part company is with intersectionality itself. I understand its original intent, but I think we've taken it far beyond common sense. Once we start breaking every human being down into overlapping categories of oppression, where does it end? Every one of us has strengths, weaknesses, hardships, and advantages. I was raised by deaf parents. Where do I fit on the intersectionality scale?
To me, we've moved away from judging people as individuals and toward judging them by an endless checklist of identities. That's a step backward, not forward.
As far as the Jews are concerned, I think intersectionality has simply become the latest framework used to justify hating us. Throughout history, Jews have been blamed by the left, blamed by the right, blamed by socialists, blamed by capitalists—and now we're blamed through the language of intersectionality. The vocabulary changes, but the scapegoat stays the same. We're simply the perfect prey.
That's why your article resonated with me. It isn't really about intersectionality. It's about the oldest hatred finding yet another modern way to reinvent itself.
You are right with your last line, for sure. I struggle with DEI and intersectionality. In principle, I lean toward the critique. But if a critique is, at its root, systemically racist (in this case, against Jews) then ... principles are garbage.
I would say Intersectionality, as a PRINCIPLE, is only good on individual level when talking about actual people. It should not be used to Dehumanize others. It should be used instead to see the complexities of other people, rather than boxing people in based on their race/family background/religion/etc. At ALL times, one should always stay open-minded and realize just how much of a variety a human being can experience in today's world, whilst seeing people based on their CHARACTER. Otherwise, it is a pointless framework that, as you said, Dehumanizes people, particularly the Jews, in this case.
There is a fundamental misunderstanding of how Jew-hatred works. Racism typically casts its targets as inferior outsiders. Jew-hatred does something entirely different. It constructs the Jew as a cosmic villain, not merely an outsider, but one with the hidden power to corrupt and control the world. The Jew, in this framework, isn't marginal: the Jew is pulling the strings. This is why Wilhelm Marr, who coined the term “antisemitism,” wrote the “victory of Judaism over Germandom,” and why Ilhan Omar tweeted in 2019 that “Israel has hypnotized the world. May Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel.” Across all three historical phases, antijudaism, antisemitism, and antizionism, the logic is consistent: take whatever a society holds as sacred, then accuse Jews of being the villains desecrating it. Today, the reigning moral framework is human rights. The United Nations, today’s church, was built around protecting human rights. And the gravest sins within that framework have names: racism, colonialism, genocide, apartheid. So when antizionists label Israel a racist, apartheid, genocidal, colonialist state, they are not simply levelling policy criticisms. They are deploying the most powerful moral accusations available in contemporary society. Calling Israel “racist” today functions exactly as calling Jews “Christ-killers” did in medieval Europe; it's the same structure, updated for a new moral language. The problem is that because we do not have distance from the antizionism era the way we do from the previous two eras of Jew-hatred, we really believe that this new hate is virtuous. Credit to: https://nayalekht.substack.com/
I am with Frederick Tatala. I am against the entire concept of intersectionality, and it's a mistake for Jews to want to be included.
Interesectionality is a part of identity politics and an attack on the individual. The left and Islam are both very collectivist. The individual is eaten up by the collective. This is by its very nature reactionary. It's backward looking, seeing everyone as part of a tribe or tribes. That's why I say rhe progressivism is reactionary. Tribal thinking works against the development of each person's individuality. It doesn't even want to see the individual. When you think like this, all Jews are the same, so attacking Jews is no different from attacking Israel.
A movement that looks to the future should want a society that develops and appreciates the individual. A highly developed individual will then be community minded and the correct balance will be found.
One more thing. What we see on the left and in Islam and in some parts of the right is a culture of grievance. It is totally negative and full of envy. Envy used to be considered a sin and therefore very much discouraged. When Western culture became less religious and more secular and political, this taboo fell away and became its opposite. Grievance and the cause of grievance, envy, became righteous. When we look at antisemitism, it's not hard to see that much of it comes from envy at the success of Jews and Israel, even in the face of enormous discrimination. That's intolerable to the antisemites.
Your comment made me realize another aspect of the "Horseshoe theory" ... how the far right and far left are really the same (especially when it comes to Jews). Your comments about Islam and the far left generalizing into groups may be correct. And remember the very root of the word "fascism" is "group" ... the collective subordinates the individual.
The word fascism refers to the image of a bundle of sticks or rods tied together. The collective. What it meant was that all people in the nation were tied together and submitted to the State. Mussolini grew up in a socialist/communist family and was a leader in the socialist movement. When he became strongly nationalistic, he broke with the socialist/communists and formed the fascist party. The fascists and the socialist were competitors, and people would switch from one to the other depending on whether they were nationalists or internationalists. They were both socialist and collectivist. In both systems, people had to submit to the state. The two movements were cousins.
What does the word Islam mean? Submission. In the case of Islam, there is no separation of mosque and State. They are one. So with Islam and socialism/communism, we have two totalitarianisms, one religious and one secular. They are both collectivist. The individual is subsumed in the state or the mosque. The common denominator helps explain how they have become allies.
The Islamists are smarter than the leftists, mainly because the left never learns. During the Iranian revolution, the Iranian socialists and communists joined forces with the mullahs and Islamists, not understanding the nature of the Islamic movement. After the mullahs took over, they jailed, killed or intimidated all the leftists who had helped them gain power. We now see the same thing being repeated in the West.
Houellebecq wrote a very good novel about this called Submission.
I’ve felt “intersectional” all my life growing up Jewish in North America. I felt I belonged because I was born here. But at the same time something was off, I didn’t quite belong. I thought my ancestral home was the Ukraine. I was astonished that my DNA showed segments from Eastern Europe and the Levant. We’re all mutts, hybrids in some way so why bother intersecting. A false division with faulty categories.
The corollary of this intersectionality is that since everything is connected, all ills are connected to Israel/Palestine. This is often found in the climate movement, where the idea that militarism contributes to climate change (arguably reasonable) quickly devolves into an obsession with Israel, called the main culprit of militarism. It's a very slippery slope.
The most egregious I've seen was a statement by graduate students at Cornell university over some BDS motion. Their statement ended : "We save Palestine and Palestine will save us.". From what they didn't say. Term papers?
It's the process of turning Israel (again!) Into the exculpatory sacrifice that will somehow appease the gods.
I never thought intersectionality meant that "everything is connected". I've not studied the literature in depth, but I always thought it meant "discrete (discreet?) forms of oppression can affect the same individual". Eg, an LGBT minority can face racism in the public domain, homophobia at home, and the solutions might not cater to their needs because they isolate the different issues.
Intersectional analysis that lands on literally anything as the most parsimonious explanation for all the world's problems, but especially on "da Jews" or ""Israel""... Wow.
As often as not, an honest analysis should lead us to the conclusion that there are legitimate and valid conflicting interests at play. And... That oppressed people can also be oppressive along other axes, and that it betrays the most underprivileged people to pretend otherwise.
"Divide and conquer" is definitely a thing, but then so is creating a bullshit coalition against an imaginary common enemy.
Pat, another thought-provoking article.
Where I part company is with intersectionality itself. I understand its original intent, but I think we've taken it far beyond common sense. Once we start breaking every human being down into overlapping categories of oppression, where does it end? Every one of us has strengths, weaknesses, hardships, and advantages. I was raised by deaf parents. Where do I fit on the intersectionality scale?
To me, we've moved away from judging people as individuals and toward judging them by an endless checklist of identities. That's a step backward, not forward.
As far as the Jews are concerned, I think intersectionality has simply become the latest framework used to justify hating us. Throughout history, Jews have been blamed by the left, blamed by the right, blamed by socialists, blamed by capitalists—and now we're blamed through the language of intersectionality. The vocabulary changes, but the scapegoat stays the same. We're simply the perfect prey.
That's why your article resonated with me. It isn't really about intersectionality. It's about the oldest hatred finding yet another modern way to reinvent itself.
You are right with your last line, for sure. I struggle with DEI and intersectionality. In principle, I lean toward the critique. But if a critique is, at its root, systemically racist (in this case, against Jews) then ... principles are garbage.
I would say Intersectionality, as a PRINCIPLE, is only good on individual level when talking about actual people. It should not be used to Dehumanize others. It should be used instead to see the complexities of other people, rather than boxing people in based on their race/family background/religion/etc. At ALL times, one should always stay open-minded and realize just how much of a variety a human being can experience in today's world, whilst seeing people based on their CHARACTER. Otherwise, it is a pointless framework that, as you said, Dehumanizes people, particularly the Jews, in this case.
Beautifully said, Rose. Thank you.
Pat’s writing is always brilliant, and so is this comment. Thanks for helping me understand my confusion about the whole issue of intersectionality.
Making a Bubbie happy is my pleasure. Have a wonderful Shabbos.
Todah!
There is a fundamental misunderstanding of how Jew-hatred works. Racism typically casts its targets as inferior outsiders. Jew-hatred does something entirely different. It constructs the Jew as a cosmic villain, not merely an outsider, but one with the hidden power to corrupt and control the world. The Jew, in this framework, isn't marginal: the Jew is pulling the strings. This is why Wilhelm Marr, who coined the term “antisemitism,” wrote the “victory of Judaism over Germandom,” and why Ilhan Omar tweeted in 2019 that “Israel has hypnotized the world. May Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel.” Across all three historical phases, antijudaism, antisemitism, and antizionism, the logic is consistent: take whatever a society holds as sacred, then accuse Jews of being the villains desecrating it. Today, the reigning moral framework is human rights. The United Nations, today’s church, was built around protecting human rights. And the gravest sins within that framework have names: racism, colonialism, genocide, apartheid. So when antizionists label Israel a racist, apartheid, genocidal, colonialist state, they are not simply levelling policy criticisms. They are deploying the most powerful moral accusations available in contemporary society. Calling Israel “racist” today functions exactly as calling Jews “Christ-killers” did in medieval Europe; it's the same structure, updated for a new moral language. The problem is that because we do not have distance from the antizionism era the way we do from the previous two eras of Jew-hatred, we really believe that this new hate is virtuous. Credit to: https://nayalekht.substack.com/
Brilliant, as ever.
Ah yes, "Where are the Jews?"
We're not "white" enough that the far right will accept us, and yet in the eyes of the far left, we're "hyperwhite".
It's the classic lose-lose situation.
"They have not transcended the ancient scapegoat.
They have intersectionalized it."
Yup, yup. You might have another TM in the making here, Pat: "Intersectionalized Jew Hate."
Haha. Thanks! I've decided to lean waaaay into the TMs .... stay tuned!
Good one!
I am with Frederick Tatala. I am against the entire concept of intersectionality, and it's a mistake for Jews to want to be included.
Interesectionality is a part of identity politics and an attack on the individual. The left and Islam are both very collectivist. The individual is eaten up by the collective. This is by its very nature reactionary. It's backward looking, seeing everyone as part of a tribe or tribes. That's why I say rhe progressivism is reactionary. Tribal thinking works against the development of each person's individuality. It doesn't even want to see the individual. When you think like this, all Jews are the same, so attacking Jews is no different from attacking Israel.
A movement that looks to the future should want a society that develops and appreciates the individual. A highly developed individual will then be community minded and the correct balance will be found.
One more thing. What we see on the left and in Islam and in some parts of the right is a culture of grievance. It is totally negative and full of envy. Envy used to be considered a sin and therefore very much discouraged. When Western culture became less religious and more secular and political, this taboo fell away and became its opposite. Grievance and the cause of grievance, envy, became righteous. When we look at antisemitism, it's not hard to see that much of it comes from envy at the success of Jews and Israel, even in the face of enormous discrimination. That's intolerable to the antisemites.
Your comment made me realize another aspect of the "Horseshoe theory" ... how the far right and far left are really the same (especially when it comes to Jews). Your comments about Islam and the far left generalizing into groups may be correct. And remember the very root of the word "fascism" is "group" ... the collective subordinates the individual.
The word fascism refers to the image of a bundle of sticks or rods tied together. The collective. What it meant was that all people in the nation were tied together and submitted to the State. Mussolini grew up in a socialist/communist family and was a leader in the socialist movement. When he became strongly nationalistic, he broke with the socialist/communists and formed the fascist party. The fascists and the socialist were competitors, and people would switch from one to the other depending on whether they were nationalists or internationalists. They were both socialist and collectivist. In both systems, people had to submit to the state. The two movements were cousins.
What does the word Islam mean? Submission. In the case of Islam, there is no separation of mosque and State. They are one. So with Islam and socialism/communism, we have two totalitarianisms, one religious and one secular. They are both collectivist. The individual is subsumed in the state or the mosque. The common denominator helps explain how they have become allies.
The Islamists are smarter than the leftists, mainly because the left never learns. During the Iranian revolution, the Iranian socialists and communists joined forces with the mullahs and Islamists, not understanding the nature of the Islamic movement. After the mullahs took over, they jailed, killed or intimidated all the leftists who had helped them gain power. We now see the same thing being repeated in the West.
Houellebecq wrote a very good novel about this called Submission.
Pat’s writing is always brilliant, and so is this comment. Thanks for helping me understand my confusion about the whole issue of intersectionality.
I’ve felt “intersectional” all my life growing up Jewish in North America. I felt I belonged because I was born here. But at the same time something was off, I didn’t quite belong. I thought my ancestral home was the Ukraine. I was astonished that my DNA showed segments from Eastern Europe and the Levant. We’re all mutts, hybrids in some way so why bother intersecting. A false division with faulty categories.
Wise to remember, always.
The corollary of this intersectionality is that since everything is connected, all ills are connected to Israel/Palestine. This is often found in the climate movement, where the idea that militarism contributes to climate change (arguably reasonable) quickly devolves into an obsession with Israel, called the main culprit of militarism. It's a very slippery slope.
The most egregious I've seen was a statement by graduate students at Cornell university over some BDS motion. Their statement ended : "We save Palestine and Palestine will save us.". From what they didn't say. Term papers?
It's the process of turning Israel (again!) Into the exculpatory sacrifice that will somehow appease the gods.
Exactly!
I never thought intersectionality meant that "everything is connected". I've not studied the literature in depth, but I always thought it meant "discrete (discreet?) forms of oppression can affect the same individual". Eg, an LGBT minority can face racism in the public domain, homophobia at home, and the solutions might not cater to their needs because they isolate the different issues.
Intersectional analysis that lands on literally anything as the most parsimonious explanation for all the world's problems, but especially on "da Jews" or ""Israel""... Wow.
As often as not, an honest analysis should lead us to the conclusion that there are legitimate and valid conflicting interests at play. And... That oppressed people can also be oppressive along other axes, and that it betrays the most underprivileged people to pretend otherwise.
"Divide and conquer" is definitely a thing, but then so is creating a bullshit coalition against an imaginary common enemy.