The Blurred Lines between the Anti-Semitism of the Left and the Right

After the massacre at a Buffalo supermarket that left ten dead and three others injured, much attention has been paid to the perpetrator’s repugnant ideas about race and immigration. But, although the shooter deliberately sought to murder African Americans, his manifesto makes clear that he sees Jews as the sinister force behind the world’s evils. The commentator known by the pseudonym Elder of Ziyon, examining the 180-page document, notes the ways that it combines anti-Semitic ideas from both far-right and far-left sources—and that often it’s difficult to tell the difference:

His chapter on Jews in the first section . . . copies both text and graphics from far-right websites. However, there is a bit of cross-pollination between the far-left and the far-right in how they regard Jews. One can see that his sources [on the right] take materials from the far-left anti-Semites and that leftist anti-Semites take materials from the same far-right materials that he quotes. His document includes talking points taken directly from the “anti-Zionist” left. . . . He also takes talking points from the Nation of Islam.

Indeed, Elder to Ziyon points to a graphic, pasted into the manifesto, that contains all the standard accusations of “apartheid,” “illegal occupation,” and the like, next to a picture of Israel with a Jewish star on top of it.

Like the anti-Semitic left, [the shooter] argues that he doesn’t hate all Jews: “When referring to ‘the Jews’ I don’t mean all ethnic or religious Jews. Some can be actually decent, and make significant progress [sic] to humanity. However many of them are not.” Is there any difference between what he says and the anti-Semitic left saying that its obsessive hate of Israel has nothing to do with hating Jews, since they think there are “good Jews” as well?

The far left and the far right might say they hate Jews for different reasons, but neither of them have a problem with using the arguments and methods of the other side.

Read more at Elder of Ziyon

More about: Anti-Semitism, Anti-Zionism, Nation of Islam, Racism

To Save Gaza, the U.S. Needs a Strategy to Restrain Iran

Since the outbreak of war on October 7, America has given Israel much support, and also much advice. Seth Cropsey argues that some of that advice hasn’t been especially good:

American demands for “restraint” and a “lighter footprint” provide significant elements of Hamas’s command structure, including Yahya Sinwar, the architect of 10/7, a far greater chance of surviving and preserving the organization’s capabilities. Its threat will persist to some extent in any case, since it has significant assets in Lebanon and is poised to enter into a full-fledged partnership with Hizballah that would give it access to Lebanon’s Palestinian refugee camps for recruitment and to Iranian-supported ratlines into Jordan and Syria.

Turning to the aftermath of the war, Cropsey observes that it will take a different kind of involvement for the U.S. to get the outcomes it desires, namely an alternative to Israeli and to Hamas rule in Gaza that comes with buy-in from its Arab allies:

The only way that Gaza can be governed in a sustainable and stable manner is through the participation of Arab states, and in particular the Gulf Arabs, and the only power that can deliver their participation is the United States. A grand bargain is impossible unless the U.S. exerts enough leverage to induce one.

Militarily speaking, the U.S. has shown no desire seriously to curb Iranian power. It has persistently signaled a desire to avoid escalation. . . . The Gulf Arabs understand this. They have no desire to engage in serious strategic dialogue with Washington and Jerusalem over Iran strategy, since Washington does not have an Iran strategy.

Gaza’s fate is a small part of a much broader strategic struggle. Unless this is recognized, any diplomatic master plan will degenerate into a diplomatic parlor game.

Read more at National Review

More about: Gaza War 2023, Iran, U.S. Foreign policy