In recent years, critical race theory has made its way out of the academy and into America’s public discourse, especially with such successful books as Robin DiAngelo’s White Fragility and Ibram X. Kendi’s How to Be an Antiracist; it even was mentioned in a presidential debate. Among the many disturbing aspects of this set of ideas is that it tends, as James Lindsay puts it, to “shoehorn Jews into its broken analytical framework.” Worse, Lindsay adds, “it both hides and misunderstands anti-Semitism, which allows for a particular, pernicious variant of it to come into existence under a full-throated denial that it’s anti-Semitism at all.” He explains:

The uniquely Jewish combination of a long history of terrible oppression of a people that isn’t just (at least partly) fair-skinned but also highly successful in what the critical race theorists would deem a “white” milieu is, in fact, completely intolerable to critical race theory. The theory distrusts Jewish success as such and, as with everything it analyzes, believes it must have something to do with having been granted access to the privileges of “whiteness”—illegitimately, by betrayal, and at the expense of blacks.

It would then, in due course, demand that “white” Jews accept and atone for their whiteness by the familiar process: recognize it in themselves, acknowledge their de-facto complicity in “white supremacy,” critique their own unwitting participation therein, and then submit to and promote the critical race theory in both ideology and deed, which takes the form of their brand of “anti-racist” social activism. . . . This [demand implicitly] requires asking Jews to deny both their history and what makes them Jews in the first place.

This point is not a small one. Critical race theory is able to pretend to acknowledge the oppression of the Jews, misunderstand its fundamental nature, [and] deny that anti-Semitism counts as a form of group oppression at all. . . . Through this completely avoidable superhighway of racist confusion, critical race theory is able to maintain a complete denial of anti-Semitism, including its own, while reproducing anti-Semitism by [deeming] Jews . . . illegitimately privileged and in unjust control of society. As a consequence, denial of Jewish oppression—however real it was historically—and viewing Jews as usurpers of cultural privilege are mainstream beliefs within critical race theory.

Combined with the hostility to Israel that pervades left-wing circles, critical race theory can easily bleed into outright anti-Semitism.

Tamir Hayman analyzes the latest reports about an offer by Hamas to release three female soldiers in exchange for 150 captured terrorists, of whom 90 have received life sentences; then, if that exchange happens successfully, a second stage of the deal will begin.

If this does happen, Israel will release all the serious prisoners who had been sentenced to life and who are associated with Hamas, which will leave Israel without any bargaining chips for the second stage. In practice, Israel will release everyone who is important to Hamas without getting back all the hostages. In this situation, it’s evident that Israel will approach the second stage of the negotiations in the most unfavorable way possible. Hamas will achieve all its demands in the first stage, except for a commitment from Israel to end the war completely.

How does this relate to the fighting in Rafah? Hayman explains:

In the absence of an agreement or compromise by Hamas, it is detrimental for Israel to continue the static situation we were in. It is positive that new energy has entered the campaign. . . . The [capture of the] border of the Gaza Strip and the Rafah crossing are extremely important achievements, while the ongoing dismantling of the battalions is of secondary importance.

That being said, Hayman is critical of the approach to negotiations taken so far:

Gradual hostage trades don’t work. We must adopt a different concept of a single deal in which Israel offers a complete cessation of the war in exchange for all the hostages.