The title of Bruno Chaouat’s Is Theory Good for the Jews? refers to a school of thought—variously dubbed “critical theory,” “postmodern theory,” or simply “Theory”—that dominates philosophy departments in France and literature departments in the U.S., and has infiltrated the humanities everywhere. Articulated by thinkers like Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida, Theory’s overarching principle is the rejection of absolute truth, linguistic meaning, conventional morality, and the ideals of civilization and progress; its central characteristic is its own obfuscatory jargon. In his book, Chaouat elucidates the troubling tendency of Theory’s leading lights to pay particular attention to the Jews, and to do so in way that is never complimentary, especially where Israel is involved.

Michael Weingrad writes in his review:

Chaouat shows how various postcolonial theorists justify or ignore Muslim anti-Semitism, seen as a legitimate response to European colonialism. Indeed, as Chaouat writes, a number of French writers are less concerned with Muslim attacks on Jews than with the [alleged] political threat posed by those European Jews who decry anti-Semitism even when exhibited by Muslims, and who defend Israel against those who would see the Jewish state destroyed. . . .

Chaouat traces some part of these inversions to Theory’s abstraction of Jews and Jewishness into symbols, fungible moral tokens easily transferred into other bank accounts. It is little surprise that intellectuals who see Jews only as de-territorialized outsiders have little use for actual flesh-and-blood Jews, let alone those with a nation-state. . . . [Today’s] postmodern theorists prefer to support projects of resistance and political violence on behalf of what they see as downtrodden groups. If Jews and Israelis, who are now defined [by most devotees of Theory] as white colonialists or even Nazis, must be thrown under history’s bus as part of this utopian project, so be it.

[But], one might respond, isn’t all this a problem not of Theory but of the radical left more generally? . . . [T]he anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism of postmodern intellectuals, their fetishization of the Palestinians and of violent jihadists, have less to do with new readings of Derrida than with longstanding features of left-wing political ideology. . . . For all his analytical acuity and moral passion, Chaouat leaves the broader historical and philosophical context of Theory’s relation to the left largely unexplored. . . .

While valuable and trenchant Chaouat’s book resembles other recent attempts by left-liberal Jewish academics to push back against their more militantly radical colleagues. . . . One applauds these efforts, but viewed from outside the truncated political system of today’s professoriate they can seem both belated and somewhat pyrrhic: old-fashioned liberals asking their radical colleagues not to march them off the same gangplank as were their conservative colleagues, and faculty who support Israel’s continued existence pleading for Jewish membership in the club of the aggrieved.

With the IDF engaged in ground maneuvers in both northern and southern Gaza, and a plan about to go into effect next week that would separate more than 100,000 civilians from Hamas’s control, an end to the war may at last be in sight. Yet there seems to be no agreement within Israel, or without, about what should become of the territory. Efraim Inbar assesses the various proposals, from Donald Trump’s plan to remove the population entirely, to the Israeli far-right’s desire to settle the Strip with Jews, to the internationally supported proposal to place Gaza under the control of the Palestinian Authority (PA)—and exposes the fatal flaws of each. He therefore tries to reframe the problem:

[M]any Arab states have failed to establish a monopoly on the use of force within their borders. Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, and Sudan all suffer from civil wars or armed militias that do not obey the central government.

Perhaps Israel needs to get used to the idea that in the absence of an entity willing to take Gaza under its wing, chaos will prevail there. This is less terrible than people may think. Chaos would allow Israel to establish buffer zones along the Gaza border without interference. Any entity controlling Gaza would oppose such measures and would resist necessary Israeli measures to reduce terrorism. Chaos may also encourage emigration.

Israel is doomed to live with bad neighbors for the foreseeable future. There is no way to ensure zero terrorism. Israel should avoid adopting a policy of containment and should constantly “mow the grass” to minimize the chances of a major threat emerging across the border. Periodic conflicts may be necessary. If the Jews want a state in their homeland, they need to internalize that Israel will have to live by the sword for many more years.