The exposure of the links between a leader of the Women’s March and Louis Farrakhan, the leader of the Nation of Islam, has led to the spectacle of many left-wing leaders defending Farrakhan, struggling to distance themselves from him without condemning him, or simply evading questions on the subject. To Chloé Valdary, some of the sympathy for Farrakhan on the left doesn’t merely stem from an inability to recognize anti-Semitism or bigotry in certain forms but from a more deep-seated affinity, based in the au-courant ideology of “intersectionality”:

Intersectionality has become . . . a rigid system for determining who is virtuous and who is not, based on traits like skin color, sex, and financial status. The more white, straight, or rich you are, the less virtue you have—and vice versa. Some have pointed out that it’s eerily similar to Christianity, complete with pointing out one’s original sin (whiteness), preaching repentance (admitting you’re privileged), and ritualistic attempts at salvation (working to dismantle one’s own alleged role in oppressing others). . . .

This framework that intersectionalists offer leaves Zionist Jews out of the equation for achieving social justice. It does not matter that Jews were historically oppressed and created the most successful liberation movement of the 20th century; it doesn’t matter that they suffered genocide at the hands of white Europeans barely 70 years ago. The fact that many Jews have white skin color is proof that they are part of the problem. This is why the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is viewed as a zero-sum game by many intersectionalists who believe the Israeli position is, by default, oppressive, simply because Israelis are viewed as “white.”

Curiously enough, intersectionality is [also] similar to the doctrine that Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam preach. In Farrakhan’s case, it is a much more overtly religious creed, but the principles are the same. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, Farrakhan believes that “white people were not created by God but by the evil black scientist Yakub. . . . Because of the process by which Yakub created the white race, white people are inherently deceitful and murderous.”

In other words, Farrakhan also believes that white people were . . . born in original sin—the sin of being white. He also believes that people of color are superior to white people and that Jews are especially worthy of derision and persecution; thus, taking away Jewish power is key to bringing about redemption. One could argue that Farrakhan and certain progressive movements share this perspective. Why else would the Movement for Black Lives and the Women’s March leadership make statements about no other geopolitical conflict on earth except for one involving Jews?

 In a recent article, the New York Times Magazine asserts that Benjamin Netanyahu “prolonged the war in Gaza to stay in power.” Niranjan Shankar takes the argument apart piece by piece, showing that for all its careful research, it fails to back up its basic claims. For instance: the article implies that Netanyahu pulled out of a three-point cease-fire proposal supported by the Biden administration in the spring of last year:

First of all, it’s crucial to note that Biden’s supposed “three-point plan” announced in May 2024 was originally an Israeli proposal. Of course, there was some back-and-forth and disagreement over how the Biden administration presented this initially, as Biden failed to emphasize that according to the three-point framework, a permanent cease-fire was conditional on Hamas releasing all of the hostages and stepping down. Regardless, the piece fails to mention that it was Hamas in June 2024 that rejected this framework!

It wasn’t until July 2024 that Hamas made its major concession—dropping its demand that Israel commit up front to a full end to the war, as opposed to doing so at a later stage of cease-fire/negotiations. Even then, U.S. negotiators admitted that both sides were still far from agreeing on a deal.

Even when the Times raises more credible criticisms of Israel—like the IDF’s decision to employ raids rather than holding territory in the first stage of the war—they are offered in what seems like bad faith:

[W]ould the New York Times prefer that Israel instead started with a massive ground campaign with a “clear-hold-build” strategy from the get-go? Of course, if Israel had done this, there would have been endless criticism, especially under the Biden admin. But when Israel instead tried the “raid-and-clear” strategy, it gets blamed for deliberately dragging the war on.