Shalom Lappin is the author of The New Antisemitism: The Resurgence of an Ancient Hatred in the Modern World (Polity Books, June 2024).
The past 6 months have been an ongoing nightmare for Israelis, Palestinians, and Diaspora Jews. Hamas’s brutal mass terrorist attack on 7 October, 2023, and Israel’s devastating military response in Gaza, as well as the ‘contained’ conflict with Hezbollah in the north, have generated trauma, heavy civilian casualties, and large scale population displacements on all sides.
The swelling tide of anti-Israel and anti-Jewish vitriol in the West is rendering life for Diaspora Jews increasingly difficult. It is threatening their sense of security and well-being in ways not previously imagined. Many are observing the recurring marches through European cities and the explosion of disruptive protests on American campuses with fear and incomprehension. These feature kafiya-masked demonstrators bearing placards calling for Israel’s destruction, and accusing ‘Zionists’ of controlling Western governments to support ‘genocide’ against the Palestinians. Mainstream political and cultural organisations have endorsed this movement. Large areas of academic and public life have become effectively inaccessible to Jews not willing to endorse these views.
A long-term ‘anti-Zionist’ programme
In fact, this is not a sudden development. It is the result of a long-term social and political crisis conditioned by economic factors, which have eroded the postwar order. This crisis has produced three virulent expressions of anti-globalisation, which have placed identity politics at the centre of their respective agendas. These include the ethno-nationalist far right, the postmodernist extreme left, and radical political Islamism. The latter two are operating in alliance. Antisemitism is a core element of each of these movements. I discuss the historical background of this threatening landscape in my forthcoming book The New Antisemitism: The Resurgence of an Ancient Hatred in the Modern World (Polity Books, June 2024). The events of 7 October and its aftermath have dramatically brought to the surface forces that have been eroding the social order over many years.
While the BDS campaign has been seeking to impose a boycott on Israel, the anti-Israel movement of which it is an integral part has now succeeded in inflicting sanctions on most Diaspora Jews. Anyone who insists on Israel’s right to exist, regardless of how sharply critical he/she may be of its government and actions, is identified as a Zionist and subject to exclusion from an expanding range of organisations and institutions. University student groups pioneered this technique, but it has spread to labour unions, professional associations, publishing concerns, public schools, and a variety of other domains. This trend is fast generating a system of social apartheid in which Jews who do not denounce Israel are excluded from acceptance in a rapidly growing area of social space. This pattern is starting to resemble previous boycotts and exclusions to which Jews were frequently subjected in Europe and the Middle East.
A new and dangerous twist
There is, however, a significant difference. The agents of the current set of sanctions regularly and ceremonially condemn antisemitism, insisting that they are ‘only anti-Zionist’. Interestingly, no other ethnic group is subject to a ‘political’ acceptability test. Moreover, this one is variable. It escalates quickly. In the past, identifying with the Israeli peace movement and opposing the occupation of the West Bank, while promoting a two-state solution, was sufficient to ensure entry to progressive circles. In recent years, rejecting the two-state model in favour of a ‘one-state’ solution became the diagnostic for an acceptable position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Since 7 October, a willingness to endorse extremist jihadi slogans such as From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be Free and Globalise the Intifada, are now displacing the less demanding language of softer forms of anti-Zionism.
When anti-Israel activists claim that they are only anti-Zionist, they sanitise their programme as a political disagreement. Such disagreements are normally resolved by changing governments and revising legal and social arrangements, while the country remains intact with its resident population in place. In fact, when apartheid was abolished in South Africa that is precisely what happened. This is not the agenda that contemporary anti-Zionism is pursuing. The more moderate constituency markets the Phantasy Island version of a unified state in which Jews and Arabs share sovereignty and enjoy equal rights. Given the raging success of other multi-ethnic ventures in the Middle East, like Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq, one is left wondering if the advocates of this approach are sufficiently obtuse to the realities of the region to believe in what they are proposing. The alternative is that they are simply employing it as a marketing tool to conceal (perhaps even from themselves) the unpalatable consequences of their proposal.
The more militant, and honest components of the anti-Zionist ferment have now emerged as explicit supporters of Hamas and Hezbollah. They openly acknowledge that they are calling for the uprooting of the 7.2 million Jewish inhabitants of Israel, and their replacement by Palestinians currently in the West Bank, Gaza, and outside of the territory. On both versions of this programme what is at stake is nothing short of the survival and continued presence of close to half the world’s Jewish population in their own country. The Hamas strategy would achieve its goal through slaughter and expulsion. 7 October provided a graphic illustration of how they would implement this strategy. Those anti-Zionists who speak of decolonisation ‘by any means necessary’ are promoting genocide, while accusing Israel of this crime, in the face of all the evidence to the contrary. The soft anti-Zionists hiding behind the claim that they are supporting peace and equal rights are simply providing mood music for this programme.
Many fellow travellers are rightly upset by the high casualties and terrible suffering that the war has inflicted on Palestinian civilians in Gaza. They seem remarkably innocent of the fact that if the movement which they are flocking to achieved its objectives, it would generate far greater devastation than the current disaster that is enlisting their activism.
What is particularly frightening to Diaspora Jews is the traction that the movement, with its deliberate ambiguity of stated purpose, has achieved in mainstream liberal public discourse and media coverage. Many commentators invoke nostalgic comparisons with the anti-Vietnam war protests. They praise the passion of pro-Palestinian activists. The frequent incidents of anti-Jewish incitement and harassment that the demonstrations exhibit are dismissed as the work of a small minority, or the manufactured concerns of cynical right wing politicians, grabbing at opportunities to discredit a progressive anti-colonialist rebellion.
As someone who was active in the anti-war movement of the 1960s, I am constantly struck by the absurdity of these comparisons. The latter was a movement with a clear and unambiguous policy. It sought the withdrawal of American troops from Vietnam so that the Vietnamese people could decide their own political course. It never advocated the destruction of a country or the expulsion of a resident population. Nor did it target people who disagreed with it for violent harassment. It was led by a broad-based group of independent democratic activists, rather than a hard core of operatives who endorse an extremist theocratic ideology committed to mass murder and terrorism.
Most people observing these marches, occupations, and demonstrations do not approve of them. Many find them threatening. This is likely to produce a far-right backlash. In fact, such a reaction was already well underway in Europe before 7 October, with the ascent of far-right parties to positions of major electoral influence throughout the EU. It may also assist Trump’s campaign, given the disarray and lack of leadership in the Democratic Party in responding to the protests. While the far-right targets Muslim immigrants, it is no friend of the Jews. It trades in second order replacement theories on which Jews have orchestrated waves of immigration for the purpose of undermining White Christian countries. Jews are finding themselves caught in the cross fire between far-right ethno-nationalists on one side, and the coalition of radical Islamists and postmodernist leftists on the other.
Long-term solutions
In my book, The New Antisemitism: The Resurgence of an Ancient Hatred in the Modern World, I argue that, in order to deal with this crisis, it is necessary to address its deeper underlying economic and social causes. One of the primary drivers of anti-globalist extremism and the social disintegration that it creates is the sharp rise in inequality of wealth and income that has characterised most countries since 1980. To reverse these trends it is necessary to devise effective means for shifting attention away from identity politics and towards class based policies. Such a perspective will return to the problem of building large coalitions to redistribute wealth and to democratise political power, as its main concern. I sketch several measures for doing this at the end of the book.
However, these are proposals for long-term reform. Diaspora Jews find themselves under threat now. They need to fashion viable responses to this threat in the short term. Five approaches come to mind as obvious ways of coping.
Five options for now
First, Jewish Communities could take the activist route and respond to the rise of antisemitism with (counter) demonstrations, legal actions, and organised demands for increased protection from the leaders of the places in which they live and work. This has been going on for several decades, with varying degrees of success. As the anti-Israel movement becomes increasingly shrill and gathers support this strategy loses its impact. Mainstream politicians, the police, and university administrators are increasingly stepping aside and allowing the movement to take control of public and university spaces, in the name of freedom of speech. We simply do not have the numbers or the electoral power to command effective protection. We also do not have many allies to support us in this struggle. Most observers are indifferent to the hostility that we are dealing with, and they look on with detachment as it is acted out. The constantly repeated incantation (from all parties) that they do not tolerate antisemitism or racism of any kind is quickly being exposed as the hollow mantra which it has become.
Second, Jews could adopt the converso approach. They conceal their identities outside of their homes and safe areas. This is a form of ethnic passing, which Jews have used many times in the past. Once again, they are resorting to it with increasing frequency. Aside from the self-abasement that this suppression of identity involves, it is not always effective. As the environment becomes more toxic, those hostile to us will resort to more invasive means to identify Jews in order to subject them to acceptability tests of the kind now applied in ‘progressive’ circles.
Third, Jews could withdraw to safe communal spaces. This would involve expanding Jewish schools and universities, as well as developing other parallel cultural institutions. It is a form of ghettoisation in the contemporary context. The beginnings of this pattern are visible in the move by American Jewish students to transfer to safe institutions, like Brandeis and Yeshiva universities, as well as the rise in day school enrolment.
Fourth, some Jews choose to join our adversaries on the far left and far right. Anti-Zionist Jews celebrate themselves as the universalist moral conscience of progressive Jewish life. They decorate anti-Israel protests led by Hamas supporters with grotesque parodies of Jewish religious rituals in a manner reminiscent of Soviet agitprop performances. On the far-right Jewish supporters of Trump (such as ZOA and the Republican Jewish Coalition) and of European neo-fascist parties hail them as pro-Israel and a bulwark against radical Islamists. Both groups are treading a well-worn path of collaboration and betrayal, with a proven record of self-destruction. These groups constitute small, if vocal minorities within the Jewish Diaspora. They provide cover to movements that threaten the integrity and security of Jewish life. They are as representative of mainstream Jewish attitudes as are Black Voices for Trump of dominant African American political opinion.
Finally, Jews can immigrate to Israel, where they will no longer be an exposed minority in an increasingly hostile host society. Israel has absorbed millions of Jewish refugees from Europe, the Middle East, North Africa, the former Soviet Union, and Ethiopia. This was its founding purpose. For all of its very serious faults and deficiencies, it has served as a sanctuary for Jews unable to live in peace and security in the Diaspora.
Herzl originally conceived of the Jewish state as a refuge for poorer East European Jews who were most at risk of violent persecution. He envisaged prosperous Western Jews remaining in their home countries. North American Jews inherited a version of this view, which resonated with the Jewish variant of American exceptionalism. Pinsker had a deeper and more realistic understanding of the Jewish situation in Diaspora. He saw antisemitism as the endemic fear of a majority towards a minority that is both familiar and pervasive, but foreign, with no clear point of origin or belonging. On his analysis, formulated in the wake of the Russian pogroms of the 1880s, the only escape from this threat was a national sanctuary in which the Jews were empowered as a people to defend themselves and reclaim a robust normal life. This project was, in many ways, an early paradigm of the anti-colonialist liberation politics of the twentieth century.
Both Jewish and African American politics at the turn of the twentieth century were characterised by a dialectic of separatist and integrationist themes. Zionism and territorialism, the separatist ideologies among the Jews, were very much minority options. The integrationist movements of Jewish socialism, liberalism, Communism, and anarchism were more influential. Historical conditions rendered them unworkable in the environments for which they were designed, leaving Israel as the only route to survival for millions of refugees. In the African American and Caribbean Communities Marcus Garvey advocated the back to Africa project, which was, effectively, a form of Black Zionism. W.E.B. du Bois promoted socialist integrationism. Historical circumstances eliminated the separatist option, with the integrationist course remaining the most efficient route to emancipation.
In the postwar era Western Diaspora Jewry embraced the integrationist model with considerable success. In the present crisis, the foundations of the postwar liberal democratic order are coming undone at the hands of extremist movements, with Jews increasingly targeted in the conflict among them. The integrationist model is no longer working properly for us.
The Hamas terrorist attack produced deep trauma among Israelis, that continues to reverberate through the country. It has caused a profound sense of insecurity among all sectors of the population. However, the events of the past six months have demonstrated that Israel is perfectly capable of defending itself from external attack (sometimes with a less than judicious use of military force), despite the deep incompetence and irresponsibility of its dysfunctional government, most notably its lamentable prime minister. It remains surprisingly resilient, in no small measure due to the robustness of its civil society.
In previous generations Israel absorbed mass immigrations of impoverished refugees, when it was far less militarily secure and economically developed than it is now. A large-scale Western Aliya would actually be a significant boon to the country, as well as to the immigrants. Their skills would be readily absorbed in a high-tech consumer economy. They would come with resources, which provide them with advantages not available to the refugees who arrived in the past.
Above all, the overwhelming majority would bring moderate liberal values to the country, strengthening the embattled progressive secular and traditional demographic. This would help pull the country back from the disastrous alt-right political course that it has been pursuing under Netanyahu. It would constrain the influence of both the extreme religious right, and the ultra-Orthodox. Such a development would rejuvenate Israeli democracy. It would also support a more rational policy towards the Palestinians.
If and when the situations in Gaza and the north are resolved, the immediate pressure on Jews in the Diaspora is likely to subside, on the surface at least. The underlying forces that generated this explosion will continue to grind on. Jews, particularly young Jews, are unlikely to forget the shocking experiences that they have been subjected to over the past several months. Many may well come to the conclusion that the long-term prospects for a secure, open, self-affirming Jewish life in their home countries are not encouraging. Should this happen, immigration to Israel is a rational solution.
The title of this article poses the question ‘Is it time to leave?’ The deepening of the crisis in democracy that we have seen over the past several decades throughout much of the West has been highlighted by the reactions to 7 October and the events that followed it. These reactions suggest that a positive answer to this question has become increasingly plausible.
