The loose threads of antisemitism

The big picture with some minor points

This post was inspired by the defiant yet measured attitude of

CJ Hopkins

. Especially his reactions to the divisive comments his post were getting. Reading his posts led me to a decision to take a stand, which does not mean that my reaction was not the result of a long process. In the past year some of my relationships ended, some lost all meaning and I have some that are hanging on a thread. The reason for all these changes is in me. I am at fault as I got tired of handling people.

I got tired to watch what I say, carefully avoid or steer away from certain subjects to avoid ‘offending’ them; not to voice any criticism, no matter how justified it is.
When I am told by a friend that we cannot talk about a particular subject because I cannot possibly understand it or that I have to shut up about another in the presence of his teenage kids, then the future of the relationship becomes tenuous.
The point here is my realization that I am ‘handling’ Substack as well.
I do not want to be perceived as a “right-wing” radical, so I tone myself down.
I consider myself reasonable and tolerant with an open mind. More open than most.
The people who cannot see me that way are beyond my reach and I should stop pandering to them. This is where I got reading C. J. Hopkins. Honesty, without worrying about the reactions to it.

And with this, I have to return to the subject of my last post.
I made most of the points I can on the subject, carefully avoiding the conspiracy theories and open accusations. What happened in the week since, is rising rhetoric, increasingly leaning in the anti-Israel, antisemitic direction, some (mostly peaceful) protests around the world and more information putting holes into the official narratives. The woke left is going insane with antisemitism, but without recognizing the irony of being in the same league with the fascists they would also like to see dead. They are the antifa antisemites behaving like any other fascist mob in history.

While the middle east conflict is the culmination of thousands of years of history, this conflict was created by outside forces, as a side-effect of the geopolitical realignment. How exactly, is open to debate.

I am definitely not alone suggesting that the cause of this particular conflict is geopolitical. Opinions abound.

• Israeli internal politics,

• an emboldened Iran trying to prevent the implementation of the Abraham accord,

• USA electoral politics to divert attention from the Ukraine debacle, or

  • An attempt to create a ‘win’ before the 2024 election, or

  • A crisis to give an opportunity to steal it (again)

• Opportunism on the part of Hamas

• Russian interference to divide America’s commitments

• An excuse for the expulsion of the Palestinians to be able to take full control of off-shore natural gas deposits best accessed from Gaza or to make room for the Ben Gurion Canal Project

  • There are theories suggesting that the Hamas incursion happened with the knowledge of the IDF, to facilitate the goals above. The theorise have holes, but the arguments have some merit as well.

• In the interviews linked below, Victor Davis Hanson puts some of the blame on the softening and complacency of Israeli society, on its failure to understand that it cannot afford the luxury of Western liberal delusions.

Theories are interesting, but it would be far more productive to ask the foundational questions of this conflict about desired outcome, agency and partisan ideology.

What is a desirable outcome?

Strangely, the same for both sides: a country “from the river, to the sea”.
For Israel, this means everything they have today plus Judea, Samaria and Gaza. Internationally recognized. Without the so-called “Palestinians”. Not without Arabs, not without Muslims, but without internal enemies.
For the Palestinians, it simply means genocide.

There is no moral equivalence, but there is a moral question:
Can ethnic cleansing be done wright?
In theory, of course. There is no place in this world that I would not be willing to leave for let’s say – ten million dollars. I love Canada, but I would have no problem giving up on living in it for the right compensation. The question then is: what is the right compensation and what to do with those who refuse accept it? These are pragmatic questions.

Who has agency?

Neither side has it. From the birth of modern Israel, they were just pawns of the geopolitical chess game.
The moral, and indeed philosophical questions about that are beyond the scope of this discussion, but that discussion should be had. What exactly is the “rules based international order”? Who is setting the rules?
Will we ever know what those ‘rules’ are? Who decided to move from laws to rules? What governs the enforcement of the rules? The whims of the globalist elites? Shouldn’t we start calling it the ‘whims based international order’? Who has actual agency?
These are moral questions.

Why must everything be partisan?

Conflicts need to be resolved. Compromises and settlements must be made. Facts must be evaluated and principles must be applied. Underlying causes must be understood.
Very little of these is happening.

I keep writing and deleting paragraphs in my desperate attempt to understand the antisemitism we are all witnessing. It keeps slowly rising to the pre-war Germany level of antisemitism. To see it showing up on the left does not surprise me, but I am taken back by its brazen vehemence. I am trying to understand it, but when I try to describe it, all I can come up with is clichés. Not explanations. All of the leftist political stances are based on virtue signaling and emotional moralizing. Could that be the reason for their affinity with the cause? The appeal of the fundamentally emotional nature of the religious hatred and anger of the Palestinians?
When we reason, they emote. Can our reason prevail over their emotions? Can we even call an emotional stance ideological?

While we can agree with Ayn Rand, her position leaves us with no option for peaceful resolutions.
You CANNOT just leave your wannabe murderers alone. At some point, you have to remove them from your environment.
Israel needs defendable borders. It is called the one state solution. From the river to the sea.

And THAT is beyond ideology.

More from me

The dog and pony show of hegemonic virtue signaling

The dog and pony show of hegemonic virtue signaling (substack.com)

More from others

• How (not) to Relativize the Holocaust - CJ Hopkins

• Gaza, Ukraine and the Fall of the Liberal International Order, or: How Western Politics Got So Crazy and Why They Seem Poised Only to Get Worse (eugyppius.com)

• The following two links are interviews with Victor Davis Hanson, saying more or less the same thing. I recommend the first.
  The Real Story Behind the Hamas Terror Attack on Israel

• Israel & Palestine | The Politics of War | Victor Davis Hanson

• Ben Shapiro Takes On University Of Cambridge (HEATED)

• What I Learned At Oxford - a summary of the above

Before you leave, I would like you to consider reading my proposal for a new Substack service which I would very much like to see coming into existence.
An Audacious proposal

An audacious proposal

Read it, comment on it and give me your list of possible debate subjects.

Please share it, cross-post and restack it to help me build support for the idea.
If you would want to work on it with me, let me know.