What do you think?
Rate this book
Contemporary Left Antisemitism
Today's antisemitism is difficult to recognize because it does not come dressed in a Nazi uniform and it does not openly proclaim its hatred or fear of Jews. This book looks at the kind of antisemitism which is tolerated or which goes unacknowledged in apparently democratic spaces: trade unions, churches, left-wing and liberal politics, the social gatherings of the chattering classes and the seminars and journals of the radical intellectuals. It analyses how criticism of Israel can mushroom into antisemitism and it looks at struggles over how antisemitism is defined. It focuses on ways in which those who raise the issue of antisemitism are often accused of doing so in bad faith for nationalist reasons. Hostility to Zionism has become a language in which opposition to imperialism, to neo-liberalism and to global capitalism is articulated and so it sets up a toxic way of imagining most Jews.
Weaving together theoretical discussion with case study narrative in an engaging and interesting way, this book is a global study which is essential reading for scholars working in sociology, politics, Middle East studies, Israel studies, Jewish studies, philosophy, anthropology, journalism and history, as well as anyone interested in current affairs and politics.
Weaving together theoretical discussion with case study narrative in an engaging and interesting way, this book is a global study which is essential reading for scholars working in sociology, politics, Middle East studies, Israel studies, Jewish studies, philosophy, anthropology, journalism and history, as well as anyone interested in current affairs and politics.
336 pages, Paperback
First published July 28, 2017
23 people are currently reading
318 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews
June 30, 2021
Reading this book like, meh, I'm still considering SOAS on my list of potential universities for my Masters/ Phd. I mean, let's be honest, I would have a great time in an anti-Israel university. Like heck yes, talk to me about the conflict, nothing is more humorous than foreign university students with opinions about the middle east, go ahead and try to educate me about my own country and region.
Anyways, after reading Jews Don’t Count, I felt like I wanted more than 100 pages about Twitter so I picked this up. Hirsh is also a British Jew who analyzes antisemitism in the British left. This book is more academic yet it's definitely readable. Hirsh is a sociologist which is cool because I rarely read about sociology. I do have some criticism but as a whole, this is a pretty educational read.
So each chapter focuses on different scenarios, from the court case on antisemitism in the University and College Union to the Labour party. By focusing on so many different spaces, Hirsh portrays how the left doesn't seem to have the tools necessary to recognize antisemitism, let alone fight it. They do not seem interested in protecting Jews or in creating spaces for Jews to feel safe.
Hirsh has clearly done his research. There's a ton of information here, plenty of anecdotes that showcase his claims. It's hard to argue that there isn't an antisemitism problem after reading this book.
Reading this continued to clarify for me how little this is about Palestinians or Israelis. I'm considering writing my bachelor thesis precisely on how the I-P conflict abroad has become something different. It doesn't hurt me, an Israeli, when some random union passes a resolution against Israel, especially when it often doesn't equal to any concrete action. When analyzing the Israeli economy, it is hard to find anything that hints at any form of success of such actions.
However, hostility towards Israel hurts the Jews living there far more. In some ways, they are a minority with no one standing up for them. Not the left, not the right. Even within Israel, we don't particularly care. It's not a problem we see as ours in everyday life. By attempting to stand up for Palestinians, it seems the left forgets about the Jews living there and their connection to Israel, whatever it may be. April Powers' post on antisemitism and the Moshava food truck cancellation are two recent news pieces which show that it is Diaspora Jews who pay the price for pro-Palestinian activism. Neither one really made the news in Israel.
Interestingly, this book made me hopeful. I mean, yes, antisemitism is rising but things have also been horrible for a long long time. It's easy to sometimes feel like our time is the worst ever but in 2001, with the Second Intifada, failure at Oslo, and the Durban conference, things were undoubtedly worse. Heck, I feel like Zionists are being attacked now but in 1975, the UN defined Zionism as racism (it was removed in 1991, when Israel went to the Madrid Peace Conference). We've been through this already. People threaten Israel with sanctions, as if 1948 wasn't fought when there was an American and European arms embargo. As if Arab countries haven't been boycotting Israel since before it was established (first Arab boycott-1922). It's good to remember that this is our history. Israel gets through stuff and so do Jews.
Among the interesting points here, I appreciated the "Livingstone Formulation". Or, when someone points out antisemitism, claiming they're acting in bad faith in order to defect criticism about Israel. This switches the conversation from discussing the potentially antisemitic content to questioning the person who called out the antisemitism. It's a way to avoid ever dealing with accountability for antisemitism. Or, "we can't be antisemitic cause we're an antiracism space, you just want to silence criticism of Israel".
The best chapters here was the one on antizionism and the one on Jewish antizionism. In the chapter on antizionism, Hirsh claims antizionism rests on ignoring material aspects in favor of ideal ones. That is, the material aspects of Jews between 1900 to 2021 have changed drastically. Zionism needs to be understood in context of whatever was going on around it in practice. By assuming Zionism can be understood merely as essential ideas, antizionists blur between the state, the government and Israeli civil society. This explains why antizionists feel it is legitimate to attack random Israeli civilians. They also end up creating an all powerful Zionist image, as they must explain how the Zionists were able to exert their will so entirely.
Reading this explained to me how there's such a focus on Zionism. For Israelis, Zionism isn't that important nowadays. If you'd ask the average (secular) Israeli about Zionism, the response will likely be a shrug, like yeah, I guess I'm a Zionist. The attempt to frame Zionism as a broad ideology with an intent to harm Palestinians, to turn Zionism into Nazism, is a way to avoid facing the actual causes that have stopped us from improving the conditions of Palestinians. I wish the only problem was a racist ideology. This wouldn't have lasted over 100 years if that were the case.
In Jewish antizionism chapter, Hirsh describes how prior to the Holocaust, there were 3 European Jewish answers to antisemitism: Zionism (self determination for Jews), Bundism (Jewish culture in Europe) and socialism (cause socialist utopia doesn't have antisemitism). Ultimately, all three failed. No one won the intellectual debate, as Zionism did not manage to protect Jews from the Holocaust and neither did Bundism. Socialism proved especially devastating to Jews in USSR. However, after 1948, Zionism won out regardless. Not by winning the debate, but simply by creating the material reality.
Jewish antizionists yearn to portray themselves as a continuation of Jewish antizionism prior to 1948 but the reality in which these ideologies exist are simply not the same. Israel exists now. Even the remaining original Bundists accepted Israel's existence (they wanted Yiddish to be taught in schools tho, even Yiddish fans like me aren't that extreme). The debate on whether Zionism is a good idea or not is over. It was determined on the ground when Jewish refugees snuck past the British immigration quotas. All we can (and should) do now is question how to make Israel better, both as a neighbor and as a country that attempts to combine Judaism with democracy. This can't be done when antizionists pretend it's possible to go back to prior 1948. Surprise, the Ottoman Empire is no more.
Hirsh also points out the hostility in these debates. This is something I find particularly concerning. I expect this is simply going to continue. The gaps will grow. The attempt by Jewish antizionists to alienate Israeli Jews is reflecting in so many aspects of Israeli and Diaspora Judaism. Feelings about Israel are becoming a polarizing topic among Diaspora Jews.
Beyond this, when antizionist Jews shut down the conversation on antisemitism, they end up hurting the legitimacy of calling out antisemitism in general. For example, I spoke to a Palestinian last week who said that all Jews are rich. When someone pointed out that's antisemitism, his response was to go, "Jews blame antisemitism for everything, I was not antisemitic, this is an excuse by the Israeli government". This rhetoric gets empowered by Jews who refuse to acknowledge any antisemitism cause you can't police the experiences of Palestinians.
Hirsh points how many Jewish antizionists grew out of the failures of the peace camp. The wave of optimism died with Rabin's assassination, the Gaza disengagement plan and Abbas' refusal in Camp David. Many turn to the international crowd as a last retort as they feel the Israeli left is dead (but hey, 13 seats and part of the coalition is not fully dead). I've seen how long time Israeli peace activists become bitter and angry, full of venom towards other groups in Israel, throwing around the word fascist, attacking religious people. I worry that frustration can bring people to this.
Another important point is the questions on academic spaces. I read The Conflict Over the Conflict: The Israel/Palestine Campus Debatea while back and it was great to read more perspectives. To me, as an Israeli, I recognize that universities are often the most liberal Israeli spaces. Israeli universities tend to be criticized for being too liberal, like when my university posted "happy independence day to whoever's celebrating". How do we combine intellectualism (which is opposed to imperialism and racism) with academic freedom? How political do universities have to be? These are important questions.
All this said, there are some issues with this book.
Firstly, Hirsh has this inherent disdain for certain identity politics. For example, he does not seem to be a fan of the oppressed vs oppressor framework, of intersectionality, of critical race theory. This is fair but rather than facing these ideas head on, he throws in snide comments. If he dislikes these movements, he should counter them, rather than assume we are on the same page with him.
Secondly, the set-up is a little odd. Only in the last chapter does Hirsh give examples for what he sees as criticism of Israel and what he sees as antisemitism. That is far far too late. I kept waiting for him to clarify it as this conversation plays a critical role in dialogue on Israel. It should have been in the beginning of the book.
In general, Hirsh occasionally jumps between ideas without fully developing other ideas. The writing is very clear but it's also too long and occasionally repetitive. There's a feeling that this book wasn't edited very well. It could have been better if it was shorter and more focused.
I very much recommend reading the chapters on the UCU, antizionism and Jewish antizionism and the last chapter. The rest of the book is not as good. In general, this seems to be a book that's better read as individual chapters than a reading the whole thing cover to cover. Each chapter definitely stands on its own.
To conclude, this is an important book. It's a little on the heavy side but I'm definitely going to share specific chapters with some friends who should definitely read this. I especially recommend this for non-Jews but I suspect it'll be mostly Jews who'll read this.
What I'm Taking With Me
- Watch me write insanely long reviews as if I don't have a huge exam next week.
- We talked about left-wing populism in one of my courses and the example was Corbyn. I've never realized how the "straight cis white men are responsible for everything bad" is equally as populist as "the elites are to blame".
- And how antisemitism ties into populism, both left and right wing.
- There's also a fascinating cycle here: the more international activists ignore claims of antisemitism, the more Jews end up moving to Israel. The war during May is likely going to result in a spike of immigration to Israel, for example. This, of course, gives Israel more support- it proves to us that the world outside of Israel is still unkind to Jews. This makes Israelis feel like we need to make sure nothing risks our lives here which is the exact opposite of what's necessary for reconciliation. We need to feel like we're not alone, that the world will be there for us if we try to create peace and it goes horribly bad. There's a reason recently immigrated French Jews are more right-wing that Jews born in Israel.
- And how wild is it that some Jews feel safer in a country that often gets threatened by nukes and occasionally gets bombed than Western Europe.
- It's only this year that I realized how much antisemitism plays a role here. Like, I really wanted to believe this is only about the conflict, that it's just normal politics but the more I learn, the more I see how that explanation just isn't satisfying.
-----------------------------
I highlighted like half of this book, so many fantastic ideas and arguments here. Review to come but before, here are some semester predictions!
Exam Season Predictions
As I'm writing this from a bomb shelter refurbished as a library with posters reminding us to wear masks, I want to remember that this semester wasn't normal. Studying during a pandemic and a war isn't normal. When I look back at this semester, I can only remember covid anxiety, replaced by massive uncertainty about courses (cause obviously, my uni didn't bother to inform what courses will be done where) which was then overshadowed by a war. I want to be kind to myself in regards to expectations. Here's to hoping next year will be better.
Also, behold, I'm still taking way too many courses even though I said this semester would be chill:
Political Economics: I adored this course. For 3/4s of the year, I was very dedicated. I still idolize the professor and legitimately believe this changed how I read news. However, when my mental health fell apart in May (thanks, Palestinian Islamic Jihad), this was the first course I stopped listening to. I'm confident in my PPE abilities though so I'm striving for over a 90. I'll be sad if I get below an 85, that would seriously mess with me, like excuse you, this is the only form of economics that I fully enjoy. The knowledge that some of my classmates are using my notes and getting better grades than me would annoy me (coughs, this is what happened in PEP texts and I'm still pissed cause I'm that level of petty).
Game Theory: This is a tough one. I've been studying this course with a friend and together, we've been doing a great job. We like to joke that we're both illogical and irrational but together, we create a functional human being. So I have no idea what it'll be like to do this exam alone, without getting into heated discussions with other people. As with every course that includes numbers, I want over 85 but heck, I'm ambitious and will strive for a 90, even if that's a little bit irrational, probably.
Internship: My paper abstract seems meh but the professor is an actual ray of sunshine and I do believe I can pull it off. I think I'll have a lot of anxiety about this but I can wrangle out a paper that'll be a 90, I believe. My interviews went fine and I do feel like I have ideas. I hope reading theory doesn't ruin my summer too much (seriously, fuck this semester, I am so over this year).
Conflicts: A lot of the grade here is based participation so I have no idea. I loved this class, though. Literally considering a Masters in Peace Studies. I'm sure I'll have a great time writing the final paper although I don't know if I want to write about the I-P conflict, if I'm able to distance myself or at least, pretend to distance myself. Let's be honest, I might go right to my comfort zone and write about the US. Might be ambitious and go for Afghanistan, especially focusing on nation-building, which is becoming one of my favorite topics. Very tempted to write about policing. Either way, I haven't seen any grades in this course yet so it's hard to know but if I write something I'll be proud with, I'm good, no matter what the grade is. This feels like a passion project, this course is for fun.
Price Theory: I pray to God that I will pass this course. That's it. A pass grade. I don't want more, I don't expect more. I think there are some subjects here that I'm good with (ayy, monopolies) but for the most part, I am terrified. I didn't even do my best this semester so I'm ready to feel bad about this. For so much of this semester, I felt like I couldn't get my brain to work, like paying attention was such a challenge. I want my future self to remember how hard it was, how overwhelming these months felt. I need to forgive myself and take this calmly. It's okay to fail another economics course.
Finance: Our TA was like, "if you had an easy time with the assignments, the test is easy" and well, after the first few assignments, I started to block out time to cry before every assignment. Usually, after a few hours of panicking (and complaining), I did most of the questions alright. So this feels like a mental block, like there's a part of my brain that full on freaks out when it sees stocks. I have a lot of time to study for this exam (although, last semester has proven this is not how it works) so maybe I'll be able to get to a point where I feel confident. My goal is over 85 so I can still condescend over business majors.
Strategy: Idk man, group projects. Over a 90 is the goal but yeah, that's just me expecting exchange students to be smarter than me. I will be happy if I can write my part and not deal with this anymore.
Philosophy of Language: I hate this philosophical field but this course has an average of 92 and is in English (I'm weirdly better at philosophy in English) so I'm hoping for over a 87. Obviously, I'd like more but realistically, I hardly wrote notes this semester and imagine I'll struggle to study for this exam. Again, this semester. If I get through exam seasons+ work+ all my programs without letting something fall apart, I'll consider this year a win and hopefully, next year I will remember to do less.
Anyways, after reading Jews Don’t Count, I felt like I wanted more than 100 pages about Twitter so I picked this up. Hirsh is also a British Jew who analyzes antisemitism in the British left. This book is more academic yet it's definitely readable. Hirsh is a sociologist which is cool because I rarely read about sociology. I do have some criticism but as a whole, this is a pretty educational read.
So each chapter focuses on different scenarios, from the court case on antisemitism in the University and College Union to the Labour party. By focusing on so many different spaces, Hirsh portrays how the left doesn't seem to have the tools necessary to recognize antisemitism, let alone fight it. They do not seem interested in protecting Jews or in creating spaces for Jews to feel safe.
Hirsh has clearly done his research. There's a ton of information here, plenty of anecdotes that showcase his claims. It's hard to argue that there isn't an antisemitism problem after reading this book.
Reading this continued to clarify for me how little this is about Palestinians or Israelis. I'm considering writing my bachelor thesis precisely on how the I-P conflict abroad has become something different. It doesn't hurt me, an Israeli, when some random union passes a resolution against Israel, especially when it often doesn't equal to any concrete action. When analyzing the Israeli economy, it is hard to find anything that hints at any form of success of such actions.
However, hostility towards Israel hurts the Jews living there far more. In some ways, they are a minority with no one standing up for them. Not the left, not the right. Even within Israel, we don't particularly care. It's not a problem we see as ours in everyday life. By attempting to stand up for Palestinians, it seems the left forgets about the Jews living there and their connection to Israel, whatever it may be. April Powers' post on antisemitism and the Moshava food truck cancellation are two recent news pieces which show that it is Diaspora Jews who pay the price for pro-Palestinian activism. Neither one really made the news in Israel.
Interestingly, this book made me hopeful. I mean, yes, antisemitism is rising but things have also been horrible for a long long time. It's easy to sometimes feel like our time is the worst ever but in 2001, with the Second Intifada, failure at Oslo, and the Durban conference, things were undoubtedly worse. Heck, I feel like Zionists are being attacked now but in 1975, the UN defined Zionism as racism (it was removed in 1991, when Israel went to the Madrid Peace Conference). We've been through this already. People threaten Israel with sanctions, as if 1948 wasn't fought when there was an American and European arms embargo. As if Arab countries haven't been boycotting Israel since before it was established (first Arab boycott-1922). It's good to remember that this is our history. Israel gets through stuff and so do Jews.
Among the interesting points here, I appreciated the "Livingstone Formulation". Or, when someone points out antisemitism, claiming they're acting in bad faith in order to defect criticism about Israel. This switches the conversation from discussing the potentially antisemitic content to questioning the person who called out the antisemitism. It's a way to avoid ever dealing with accountability for antisemitism. Or, "we can't be antisemitic cause we're an antiracism space, you just want to silence criticism of Israel".
The best chapters here was the one on antizionism and the one on Jewish antizionism. In the chapter on antizionism, Hirsh claims antizionism rests on ignoring material aspects in favor of ideal ones. That is, the material aspects of Jews between 1900 to 2021 have changed drastically. Zionism needs to be understood in context of whatever was going on around it in practice. By assuming Zionism can be understood merely as essential ideas, antizionists blur between the state, the government and Israeli civil society. This explains why antizionists feel it is legitimate to attack random Israeli civilians. They also end up creating an all powerful Zionist image, as they must explain how the Zionists were able to exert their will so entirely.
Reading this explained to me how there's such a focus on Zionism. For Israelis, Zionism isn't that important nowadays. If you'd ask the average (secular) Israeli about Zionism, the response will likely be a shrug, like yeah, I guess I'm a Zionist. The attempt to frame Zionism as a broad ideology with an intent to harm Palestinians, to turn Zionism into Nazism, is a way to avoid facing the actual causes that have stopped us from improving the conditions of Palestinians. I wish the only problem was a racist ideology. This wouldn't have lasted over 100 years if that were the case.
In Jewish antizionism chapter, Hirsh describes how prior to the Holocaust, there were 3 European Jewish answers to antisemitism: Zionism (self determination for Jews), Bundism (Jewish culture in Europe) and socialism (cause socialist utopia doesn't have antisemitism). Ultimately, all three failed. No one won the intellectual debate, as Zionism did not manage to protect Jews from the Holocaust and neither did Bundism. Socialism proved especially devastating to Jews in USSR. However, after 1948, Zionism won out regardless. Not by winning the debate, but simply by creating the material reality.
Jewish antizionists yearn to portray themselves as a continuation of Jewish antizionism prior to 1948 but the reality in which these ideologies exist are simply not the same. Israel exists now. Even the remaining original Bundists accepted Israel's existence (they wanted Yiddish to be taught in schools tho, even Yiddish fans like me aren't that extreme). The debate on whether Zionism is a good idea or not is over. It was determined on the ground when Jewish refugees snuck past the British immigration quotas. All we can (and should) do now is question how to make Israel better, both as a neighbor and as a country that attempts to combine Judaism with democracy. This can't be done when antizionists pretend it's possible to go back to prior 1948. Surprise, the Ottoman Empire is no more.
Hirsh also points out the hostility in these debates. This is something I find particularly concerning. I expect this is simply going to continue. The gaps will grow. The attempt by Jewish antizionists to alienate Israeli Jews is reflecting in so many aspects of Israeli and Diaspora Judaism. Feelings about Israel are becoming a polarizing topic among Diaspora Jews.
Beyond this, when antizionist Jews shut down the conversation on antisemitism, they end up hurting the legitimacy of calling out antisemitism in general. For example, I spoke to a Palestinian last week who said that all Jews are rich. When someone pointed out that's antisemitism, his response was to go, "Jews blame antisemitism for everything, I was not antisemitic, this is an excuse by the Israeli government". This rhetoric gets empowered by Jews who refuse to acknowledge any antisemitism cause you can't police the experiences of Palestinians.
Hirsh points how many Jewish antizionists grew out of the failures of the peace camp. The wave of optimism died with Rabin's assassination, the Gaza disengagement plan and Abbas' refusal in Camp David. Many turn to the international crowd as a last retort as they feel the Israeli left is dead (but hey, 13 seats and part of the coalition is not fully dead). I've seen how long time Israeli peace activists become bitter and angry, full of venom towards other groups in Israel, throwing around the word fascist, attacking religious people. I worry that frustration can bring people to this.
Another important point is the questions on academic spaces. I read The Conflict Over the Conflict: The Israel/Palestine Campus Debatea while back and it was great to read more perspectives. To me, as an Israeli, I recognize that universities are often the most liberal Israeli spaces. Israeli universities tend to be criticized for being too liberal, like when my university posted "happy independence day to whoever's celebrating". How do we combine intellectualism (which is opposed to imperialism and racism) with academic freedom? How political do universities have to be? These are important questions.
All this said, there are some issues with this book.
Firstly, Hirsh has this inherent disdain for certain identity politics. For example, he does not seem to be a fan of the oppressed vs oppressor framework, of intersectionality, of critical race theory. This is fair but rather than facing these ideas head on, he throws in snide comments. If he dislikes these movements, he should counter them, rather than assume we are on the same page with him.
Secondly, the set-up is a little odd. Only in the last chapter does Hirsh give examples for what he sees as criticism of Israel and what he sees as antisemitism. That is far far too late. I kept waiting for him to clarify it as this conversation plays a critical role in dialogue on Israel. It should have been in the beginning of the book.
In general, Hirsh occasionally jumps between ideas without fully developing other ideas. The writing is very clear but it's also too long and occasionally repetitive. There's a feeling that this book wasn't edited very well. It could have been better if it was shorter and more focused.
I very much recommend reading the chapters on the UCU, antizionism and Jewish antizionism and the last chapter. The rest of the book is not as good. In general, this seems to be a book that's better read as individual chapters than a reading the whole thing cover to cover. Each chapter definitely stands on its own.
To conclude, this is an important book. It's a little on the heavy side but I'm definitely going to share specific chapters with some friends who should definitely read this. I especially recommend this for non-Jews but I suspect it'll be mostly Jews who'll read this.
What I'm Taking With Me
- Watch me write insanely long reviews as if I don't have a huge exam next week.
- We talked about left-wing populism in one of my courses and the example was Corbyn. I've never realized how the "straight cis white men are responsible for everything bad" is equally as populist as "the elites are to blame".
- And how antisemitism ties into populism, both left and right wing.
- There's also a fascinating cycle here: the more international activists ignore claims of antisemitism, the more Jews end up moving to Israel. The war during May is likely going to result in a spike of immigration to Israel, for example. This, of course, gives Israel more support- it proves to us that the world outside of Israel is still unkind to Jews. This makes Israelis feel like we need to make sure nothing risks our lives here which is the exact opposite of what's necessary for reconciliation. We need to feel like we're not alone, that the world will be there for us if we try to create peace and it goes horribly bad. There's a reason recently immigrated French Jews are more right-wing that Jews born in Israel.
- And how wild is it that some Jews feel safer in a country that often gets threatened by nukes and occasionally gets bombed than Western Europe.
- It's only this year that I realized how much antisemitism plays a role here. Like, I really wanted to believe this is only about the conflict, that it's just normal politics but the more I learn, the more I see how that explanation just isn't satisfying.
-----------------------------
I highlighted like half of this book, so many fantastic ideas and arguments here. Review to come but before, here are some semester predictions!
Exam Season Predictions
As I'm writing this from a bomb shelter refurbished as a library with posters reminding us to wear masks, I want to remember that this semester wasn't normal. Studying during a pandemic and a war isn't normal. When I look back at this semester, I can only remember covid anxiety, replaced by massive uncertainty about courses (cause obviously, my uni didn't bother to inform what courses will be done where) which was then overshadowed by a war. I want to be kind to myself in regards to expectations. Here's to hoping next year will be better.
Also, behold, I'm still taking way too many courses even though I said this semester would be chill:
Political Economics: I adored this course. For 3/4s of the year, I was very dedicated. I still idolize the professor and legitimately believe this changed how I read news. However, when my mental health fell apart in May (thanks, Palestinian Islamic Jihad), this was the first course I stopped listening to. I'm confident in my PPE abilities though so I'm striving for over a 90. I'll be sad if I get below an 85, that would seriously mess with me, like excuse you, this is the only form of economics that I fully enjoy. The knowledge that some of my classmates are using my notes and getting better grades than me would annoy me (coughs, this is what happened in PEP texts and I'm still pissed cause I'm that level of petty).
Game Theory: This is a tough one. I've been studying this course with a friend and together, we've been doing a great job. We like to joke that we're both illogical and irrational but together, we create a functional human being. So I have no idea what it'll be like to do this exam alone, without getting into heated discussions with other people. As with every course that includes numbers, I want over 85 but heck, I'm ambitious and will strive for a 90, even if that's a little bit irrational, probably.
Internship: My paper abstract seems meh but the professor is an actual ray of sunshine and I do believe I can pull it off. I think I'll have a lot of anxiety about this but I can wrangle out a paper that'll be a 90, I believe. My interviews went fine and I do feel like I have ideas. I hope reading theory doesn't ruin my summer too much (seriously, fuck this semester, I am so over this year).
Conflicts: A lot of the grade here is based participation so I have no idea. I loved this class, though. Literally considering a Masters in Peace Studies. I'm sure I'll have a great time writing the final paper although I don't know if I want to write about the I-P conflict, if I'm able to distance myself or at least, pretend to distance myself. Let's be honest, I might go right to my comfort zone and write about the US. Might be ambitious and go for Afghanistan, especially focusing on nation-building, which is becoming one of my favorite topics. Very tempted to write about policing. Either way, I haven't seen any grades in this course yet so it's hard to know but if I write something I'll be proud with, I'm good, no matter what the grade is. This feels like a passion project, this course is for fun.
Price Theory: I pray to God that I will pass this course. That's it. A pass grade. I don't want more, I don't expect more. I think there are some subjects here that I'm good with (ayy, monopolies) but for the most part, I am terrified. I didn't even do my best this semester so I'm ready to feel bad about this. For so much of this semester, I felt like I couldn't get my brain to work, like paying attention was such a challenge. I want my future self to remember how hard it was, how overwhelming these months felt. I need to forgive myself and take this calmly. It's okay to fail another economics course.
Finance: Our TA was like, "if you had an easy time with the assignments, the test is easy" and well, after the first few assignments, I started to block out time to cry before every assignment. Usually, after a few hours of panicking (and complaining), I did most of the questions alright. So this feels like a mental block, like there's a part of my brain that full on freaks out when it sees stocks. I have a lot of time to study for this exam (although, last semester has proven this is not how it works) so maybe I'll be able to get to a point where I feel confident. My goal is over 85 so I can still condescend over business majors.
Strategy: Idk man, group projects. Over a 90 is the goal but yeah, that's just me expecting exchange students to be smarter than me. I will be happy if I can write my part and not deal with this anymore.
Philosophy of Language: I hate this philosophical field but this course has an average of 92 and is in English (I'm weirdly better at philosophy in English) so I'm hoping for over a 87. Obviously, I'd like more but realistically, I hardly wrote notes this semester and imagine I'll struggle to study for this exam. Again, this semester. If I get through exam seasons+ work+ all my programs without letting something fall apart, I'll consider this year a win and hopefully, next year I will remember to do less.
May 31, 2021
This single book has been my one source of calmness these last two and a half weeks. It is written in a British political context, but so much of it applies to other countries like the US, especially when it comes to universities, colleges, and social media. I’ve been recommending the book to friends and family and hope that anyone who cares about the Middle East will read it.
November 1, 2018
A solid critique of Jew hatred from the left in Britain...the usual suspects...The labor party under Corbyn...Trade Unions...Various academic institutions....Ugly stuff all around ....
November 14, 2024
Read a few of these bad boys while on a camping trip a few months ago with my family. See pic, including me (long, dark, curly hair; looks Jewish) at the infamous Twilight Museum in Forks, Washington. HellLLLOOO Edward Cullen!!
Anyway, my mom asked me the difference between antisemitism and anti-Zionism. My mom is a smart lady and happens to be a lawyer, too. Needless to say, it struck me anew how easily these topics can be manipulated to take advantage of people that pay less attention.
This book did that. It painted all leftists with a broad stroke and, most importantly, it refused to engage with or even identify their arguments. In my opinion, if you do that then you are forfeiting the battle. It works on lesser-engaged people, though. There was some good stuff here, too, but it's hard to focus on that when I'm hyperfocused on how easily some strategic branding can mislead the masses. It's basically all I can think about now that Trump swept the election: it doesn't matter that wages were outpacing inflation or that the Fed actually pulled off a soft landing with inflation nearing an all-time low; it doesn't matter that economists were convinced that his tariff plan would increase inflation; he just had to brand himself as the opponent of inflation, refuse to engage with the substantive arguments that argue against his claims, and wait for angry, lesser-engaged folks to agree with him.
This book felt like the antisemitism equivalent. There are plenty of well-written, credible, respectful, and highly convincing arguments that Zionist lobby's weaponization of antisemitism intentionally sees it where it does not exist and thereby chills valuable speech. I shouldn't have to say this, but, just to ward off the inevitable pushback, bad faith or otherwise: NO, those arguments do not mean or even imply that antisemitism is not a real and growing issue, including among the far left. I agree that antisemitism can sometimes be complicated to unpack, especially given that it can be subconscious and that many Zionists (perhaps appropriately, though arguably not appropriately) view support for Israel as coextensive with support for Jews. But we can't even discuss those arguments, because they're labeled as antisemitic and thus preempted from discussion. This book completely declined to engage in those arguments. It felt like a gaping hole and it frustrates me to no end. It polarizes both sides. It helps its own side achieve a short-term win at the cost of its adherents realizing how much they actually do have in common. If you lean conservative and want to hear mostly reasonable support for those arguments, I encourage you to pick up On Antisemitism: Solidarity and the Struggle for Justice in Palestine. I don't agree with many of JVP's positions or tactics, but that collection packs a strong punch. All I want is for Hanukkah is for a conservative author to actually engage with its points.
Anyway... enjoy the camping pics. Mom requested I pick lighter reads for the next camping trip. Emily Henry, anyone?
Anyway, my mom asked me the difference between antisemitism and anti-Zionism. My mom is a smart lady and happens to be a lawyer, too. Needless to say, it struck me anew how easily these topics can be manipulated to take advantage of people that pay less attention.
This book did that. It painted all leftists with a broad stroke and, most importantly, it refused to engage with or even identify their arguments. In my opinion, if you do that then you are forfeiting the battle. It works on lesser-engaged people, though. There was some good stuff here, too, but it's hard to focus on that when I'm hyperfocused on how easily some strategic branding can mislead the masses. It's basically all I can think about now that Trump swept the election: it doesn't matter that wages were outpacing inflation or that the Fed actually pulled off a soft landing with inflation nearing an all-time low; it doesn't matter that economists were convinced that his tariff plan would increase inflation; he just had to brand himself as the opponent of inflation, refuse to engage with the substantive arguments that argue against his claims, and wait for angry, lesser-engaged folks to agree with him.
This book felt like the antisemitism equivalent. There are plenty of well-written, credible, respectful, and highly convincing arguments that Zionist lobby's weaponization of antisemitism intentionally sees it where it does not exist and thereby chills valuable speech. I shouldn't have to say this, but, just to ward off the inevitable pushback, bad faith or otherwise: NO, those arguments do not mean or even imply that antisemitism is not a real and growing issue, including among the far left. I agree that antisemitism can sometimes be complicated to unpack, especially given that it can be subconscious and that many Zionists (perhaps appropriately, though arguably not appropriately) view support for Israel as coextensive with support for Jews. But we can't even discuss those arguments, because they're labeled as antisemitic and thus preempted from discussion. This book completely declined to engage in those arguments. It felt like a gaping hole and it frustrates me to no end. It polarizes both sides. It helps its own side achieve a short-term win at the cost of its adherents realizing how much they actually do have in common. If you lean conservative and want to hear mostly reasonable support for those arguments, I encourage you to pick up On Antisemitism: Solidarity and the Struggle for Justice in Palestine. I don't agree with many of JVP's positions or tactics, but that collection packs a strong punch. All I want is for Hanukkah is for a conservative author to actually engage with its points.
Anyway... enjoy the camping pics. Mom requested I pick lighter reads for the next camping trip. Emily Henry, anyone?
June 28, 2022
There are other books that deal with this, for example “Jews Don’t Count”. This book is more academic, though accessible.
I appreciated the discussions on subjective intent - can someone be antisemitic without consciously hating Jews? As I see the mainstream, lefty people around me engage in antisemitic tropes I think about this a lot.
Why do the people who accept institutional racism in other cases reject it for antisemitism?
I will warn you, I feel quite hopeless after reading this. Antisemitism is becoming increasingly fashionable again, in the “community of the good”, the “people like us”; bistro antisemitism.
Yet the only antisemitism we are allowed to recognise is the beer hall variety, with a uniform and a funny moustache.
I guess one whiff of hope is what happened to Corbyn after this book was finished, but this seems to be one step forward, two steps back.
I also appreciated the discussion on having your Judaism constructed by your “enemies”, the way a Jewish identity can grow in response to attack, where before it was essentially dormant.
This leads me to consider how the more the antisemitism grows the more it creates a reaction in Jews which includes Zionism - if this is how the world treats Jews then they better look after themselves.
Hopeless, seems we’ll never see the end of it.
Amazing how a minority population, 0.2% of the world, and a minuscule sliver of land can be the focus of so much hate.
I appreciated the discussions on subjective intent - can someone be antisemitic without consciously hating Jews? As I see the mainstream, lefty people around me engage in antisemitic tropes I think about this a lot.
Why do the people who accept institutional racism in other cases reject it for antisemitism?
I will warn you, I feel quite hopeless after reading this. Antisemitism is becoming increasingly fashionable again, in the “community of the good”, the “people like us”; bistro antisemitism.
Yet the only antisemitism we are allowed to recognise is the beer hall variety, with a uniform and a funny moustache.
I guess one whiff of hope is what happened to Corbyn after this book was finished, but this seems to be one step forward, two steps back.
I also appreciated the discussion on having your Judaism constructed by your “enemies”, the way a Jewish identity can grow in response to attack, where before it was essentially dormant.
This leads me to consider how the more the antisemitism grows the more it creates a reaction in Jews which includes Zionism - if this is how the world treats Jews then they better look after themselves.
Hopeless, seems we’ll never see the end of it.
Amazing how a minority population, 0.2% of the world, and a minuscule sliver of land can be the focus of so much hate.
November 12, 2018
Some important points (not to mention a vast quantity of data) mired by flawed reasoning, double standards and, frequently, a failure to seriously engage with opposing claims. Despite frequent (often accurate) criticisms of the unwillingness of many antizionists to offer measured responses to their critics, the author not only has a sneering, condescending, attitude to everybody he disagrees with, but he imputes antisemitism in just about every single conceivable expression of anti-Zionism.
Antisemitism on the British left is a serious problem, and the anti-Zionist movement needs to be more self-critical, stop demonizing Israel, and make a proper, concerted, effort to rid itself of antisemitism. Dealing with antisemitism on the left requires a serious, nuanced, analysis, whether it comes from inside or outside the anti-Zionist movement. Instead, David Hirsh has offered a reactionary diatribe that fails to adequately characterize the problem, let alone analyze its complexities.
Antisemitism on the British left is a serious problem, and the anti-Zionist movement needs to be more self-critical, stop demonizing Israel, and make a proper, concerted, effort to rid itself of antisemitism. Dealing with antisemitism on the left requires a serious, nuanced, analysis, whether it comes from inside or outside the anti-Zionist movement. Instead, David Hirsh has offered a reactionary diatribe that fails to adequately characterize the problem, let alone analyze its complexities.
October 26, 2025
An important book about the rise of anti-Semitism in the British Labor Party (which I don't consider still is a labor party), and more generally on the "left." This book was published in 2017.
Now this is prevalent all over the world with people on the "left" supporting Hamas and its pogroms! What Hirsh wrote about turned out to be just the tip of the proverbial iceberg.
i strongly recommend The Fight Against Jew-Hatred and Pogroms in the Imperialist Epoch and The Jewish Question: A Marxist Interpretation.
For those who think Marxism was anti-Semitic to begin with, I attach a letter by Frederick Engels:
... But whether you might not be doing more harm than good with your anti-Semitism is something I would ask you to consider. For anti-Semitism betokens a retarded culture, which is why it is found only in Prussia and Austria, and in Russia too. Anyone dabbling in anti-Semitism, either in England or in America, would simply be ridiculed, while in Paris the only impression created by M. Drumont’s writings – wittier by far than those of the German anti-Semites – was that of a somewhat ineffectual flash in the pan.
Moreover, now that he is standing for the Municipal Council he has actually had to declare himself an opponent of Christian no less than of Jewish capital. And M. Drumont would be read even were he to take the opposite view.
In Prussia it is the lesser nobility, the Junkers with an income of 10,000 marks and outgoings of 20,000, and hence subject to usury, who indulge in anti-Semitism, while both in Prussia and Austria a vociferous chorus is provided by those whom competition from big capital has ruined – the petty bourgeoisie, skilled craftsmen and small shopkeepers. But in as much as capital, whether Semitic or Aryan, circumcised or baptized, is destroying these classes of society which are reactionary through and through, it is only doing what pertains to its office, and doing it well; it is helping to impel the retarded Prussians and Austrians forward until they eventually attain the present-day level at which all the old social distinctions resolve themselves in the one great antithesis – capitalists and wage-laborers. Only in places where this has not yet happened, where there is no strong capitalist class and hence no strong class of wage-laborers, where capital is not yet strong enough to gain control of national production as a whole, so that its activities are mainly confined to the Stock Exchange – in other words, where production is still in the hands of the farmers, landowners, craftsmen and suchlike classes surviving from the Middle Ages – there, and there alone, is capital mainly Jewish, and there alone is anti-Semitism rife.
In North America not a single Jew is to be found among the millionaires whose wealth can, in some cases, scarcely be expressed in terms of our paltry marks, gulden or francs and, by comparison with these Americans, the Rothschilds are veritable paupers. And even in England, Rothschild is a man of modest means when set, for example, against the Duke of Westminster. Even in our own Rhineland from which, with the help of the French, we drove the aristocracy 95 years ago and where we have established modern industry, one may look in vain for Jews.
Hence anti-Semitism is merely the reaction of declining medieval social strata against a modern society consisting essentially of capitalists and wage-laborers, so that all it serves are reactionary ends under a purportedly socialist cloak; it is a degenerate form of feudal socialism, and we can have nothing to do with that. The very fact of its existence in a region is proof that there is not yet enough capital there. Capital and wage-labor are today indivisible. The stronger capital and hence the wage-earning class becomes, the closer will be the demise of capitalist domination. So, what I would wish for us Germans, amongst whom I also count the Viennese, is that the capitalist economy should develop at a truly spanking pace rather than slowly decline into stagnation.
In addition, the anti-Semite presents the facts in an entirely false light. He doesn’t even know the Jews he decries, otherwise he would be aware that, thanks to anti-Semitism in eastern Europe, and to the Spanish Inquisition in Turkey, there are here in England and in America thousands upon thousands of Jewish proletarians; and it is precisely, these Jewish workers who are the worst exploited and the most poverty-stricken. In England during the past twelve months, we have had three strikes by Jewish workers. Are we then expected to engage in anti-Semitism in our struggle against capital?
Furthermore, we are far too deeply indebted to the Jews. Leaving aside Heine and Börne, Marx was a full-blooded Jew; Lassalle was a Jew. Many of our best people are Jews. My friend Victor Adler, who is now atoning in a Viennese prison for his devotion to the cause of the proletariat, Eduard Bernstein, editor of the London Sozialdemokrat, Paul Singer, one of our best men in the Reichstag – people whom I am proud to call my friends, and all of them Jewish! After all, I myself was dubbed a Jew by the Gartenlaube and, indeed, if given the choice, I'd as lief be a Jew as a ‘Herr von'!
London, April 19, 1890
Frederick Engels
Now this is prevalent all over the world with people on the "left" supporting Hamas and its pogroms! What Hirsh wrote about turned out to be just the tip of the proverbial iceberg.
i strongly recommend The Fight Against Jew-Hatred and Pogroms in the Imperialist Epoch and The Jewish Question: A Marxist Interpretation.
For those who think Marxism was anti-Semitic to begin with, I attach a letter by Frederick Engels:
... But whether you might not be doing more harm than good with your anti-Semitism is something I would ask you to consider. For anti-Semitism betokens a retarded culture, which is why it is found only in Prussia and Austria, and in Russia too. Anyone dabbling in anti-Semitism, either in England or in America, would simply be ridiculed, while in Paris the only impression created by M. Drumont’s writings – wittier by far than those of the German anti-Semites – was that of a somewhat ineffectual flash in the pan.
Moreover, now that he is standing for the Municipal Council he has actually had to declare himself an opponent of Christian no less than of Jewish capital. And M. Drumont would be read even were he to take the opposite view.
In Prussia it is the lesser nobility, the Junkers with an income of 10,000 marks and outgoings of 20,000, and hence subject to usury, who indulge in anti-Semitism, while both in Prussia and Austria a vociferous chorus is provided by those whom competition from big capital has ruined – the petty bourgeoisie, skilled craftsmen and small shopkeepers. But in as much as capital, whether Semitic or Aryan, circumcised or baptized, is destroying these classes of society which are reactionary through and through, it is only doing what pertains to its office, and doing it well; it is helping to impel the retarded Prussians and Austrians forward until they eventually attain the present-day level at which all the old social distinctions resolve themselves in the one great antithesis – capitalists and wage-laborers. Only in places where this has not yet happened, where there is no strong capitalist class and hence no strong class of wage-laborers, where capital is not yet strong enough to gain control of national production as a whole, so that its activities are mainly confined to the Stock Exchange – in other words, where production is still in the hands of the farmers, landowners, craftsmen and suchlike classes surviving from the Middle Ages – there, and there alone, is capital mainly Jewish, and there alone is anti-Semitism rife.
In North America not a single Jew is to be found among the millionaires whose wealth can, in some cases, scarcely be expressed in terms of our paltry marks, gulden or francs and, by comparison with these Americans, the Rothschilds are veritable paupers. And even in England, Rothschild is a man of modest means when set, for example, against the Duke of Westminster. Even in our own Rhineland from which, with the help of the French, we drove the aristocracy 95 years ago and where we have established modern industry, one may look in vain for Jews.
Hence anti-Semitism is merely the reaction of declining medieval social strata against a modern society consisting essentially of capitalists and wage-laborers, so that all it serves are reactionary ends under a purportedly socialist cloak; it is a degenerate form of feudal socialism, and we can have nothing to do with that. The very fact of its existence in a region is proof that there is not yet enough capital there. Capital and wage-labor are today indivisible. The stronger capital and hence the wage-earning class becomes, the closer will be the demise of capitalist domination. So, what I would wish for us Germans, amongst whom I also count the Viennese, is that the capitalist economy should develop at a truly spanking pace rather than slowly decline into stagnation.
In addition, the anti-Semite presents the facts in an entirely false light. He doesn’t even know the Jews he decries, otherwise he would be aware that, thanks to anti-Semitism in eastern Europe, and to the Spanish Inquisition in Turkey, there are here in England and in America thousands upon thousands of Jewish proletarians; and it is precisely, these Jewish workers who are the worst exploited and the most poverty-stricken. In England during the past twelve months, we have had three strikes by Jewish workers. Are we then expected to engage in anti-Semitism in our struggle against capital?
Furthermore, we are far too deeply indebted to the Jews. Leaving aside Heine and Börne, Marx was a full-blooded Jew; Lassalle was a Jew. Many of our best people are Jews. My friend Victor Adler, who is now atoning in a Viennese prison for his devotion to the cause of the proletariat, Eduard Bernstein, editor of the London Sozialdemokrat, Paul Singer, one of our best men in the Reichstag – people whom I am proud to call my friends, and all of them Jewish! After all, I myself was dubbed a Jew by the Gartenlaube and, indeed, if given the choice, I'd as lief be a Jew as a ‘Herr von'!
London, April 19, 1890
Frederick Engels
October 15, 2025
****.5
The author is a British sociologist, and presents an interesting perspective on the subject. Although the focus is on the UK, with deep dives into leftist politicians like London mayor Ken Livingstone and Labour party leader Jeremy Corbyn. For those living elsewhere, there's still a great deal to be learned, as the same types of arguments apply in Europe and the US. He spends a great deal of time examining the relationship between anti-Zionism and antisemitism (hint: the Venn diagram largely overlaps), and the pernicious and hypocritical BDS movement.
The writing is generally academic, but he mostly avoids using academic jargon and writes clearly, in an accessible and easy to understand manner. If anything, he takes aim at his colleagues that hide behind academic language and what he views as overly simplistic artificial constructs. For instance, he shows how the anti-imperialist framing of "settler-colonizers" doesn't hold up when applied to Israel. He also decries the more general abandonment by the Left of class struggle in favour of oppressed vs oppressor on the national level, reducing the complexities of geopolitics to "good" and "bad" countries (e.g. white vs brown/black, North/West vs. "Global South", etc.). As a result, the bad parts of the oppressed societies are glossed over or excused (e.g. treatment of women, minorities, LGBT in Muslim/Arab countries), while diverse societies such as Israel are treated as a unified monolithic structure.
One thing that struck me reading this 2017 book in Oct 2025 is how stale a lot of the arguments are. Israel's critics were cynically accusing it of genocide long before the recent war, and the BDS movement was started decades ago. The antisemitic tropes are even older, at best dusted off and repackaged for a modern audience. Which makes this book still an extremely relevant read, as all of the issues covered remain unresolved, and many have gotten significantly worse.
The author is a British sociologist, and presents an interesting perspective on the subject. Although the focus is on the UK, with deep dives into leftist politicians like London mayor Ken Livingstone and Labour party leader Jeremy Corbyn. For those living elsewhere, there's still a great deal to be learned, as the same types of arguments apply in Europe and the US. He spends a great deal of time examining the relationship between anti-Zionism and antisemitism (hint: the Venn diagram largely overlaps), and the pernicious and hypocritical BDS movement.
The writing is generally academic, but he mostly avoids using academic jargon and writes clearly, in an accessible and easy to understand manner. If anything, he takes aim at his colleagues that hide behind academic language and what he views as overly simplistic artificial constructs. For instance, he shows how the anti-imperialist framing of "settler-colonizers" doesn't hold up when applied to Israel. He also decries the more general abandonment by the Left of class struggle in favour of oppressed vs oppressor on the national level, reducing the complexities of geopolitics to "good" and "bad" countries (e.g. white vs brown/black, North/West vs. "Global South", etc.). As a result, the bad parts of the oppressed societies are glossed over or excused (e.g. treatment of women, minorities, LGBT in Muslim/Arab countries), while diverse societies such as Israel are treated as a unified monolithic structure.
One thing that struck me reading this 2017 book in Oct 2025 is how stale a lot of the arguments are. Israel's critics were cynically accusing it of genocide long before the recent war, and the BDS movement was started decades ago. The antisemitic tropes are even older, at best dusted off and repackaged for a modern audience. Which makes this book still an extremely relevant read, as all of the issues covered remain unresolved, and many have gotten significantly worse.
January 24, 2025
Phenomenal book. Clinical. Formulaic in its description of thought structures which lead to Antisemitism in the left.
I'll try to describe my favorite one here:
If people genuinely think of themselves as morally clean anti-racists, then dropping a bombshell on them that what they said was antisemitic -- which they are socialized to only recognize it's overt extremist forms (like nazism, kkk, great replacement theory), to them signifies that youre calling them akin to all those things.
Antisemitic charges then become this nuclear bomb, that anti-racists can say they are victims of. In their mind, doing something for anti-racist reasons gets them called something they associate with Hitler -- it's no wonder they see it as a dirty trick by the accusers (Jews/Zionists). And if to them, its so obvious that they are not Hitler/extreme form of jew hatred, then the one's doing the accusation must be doing it on purpose. Both an ad-hominem and crying wolf.
If the people doing the accusing are acting in bad faith against you and your antiracist views that you developed within a group paradigm (leftism, universalism), then those doing the accusing are not belonging to the in-group and worse, are opponents of it. They are now outside the community of the good and the progressive. They are now the 'other'. If they are now the other, their opinions are irrelevant. How much stock do in-groups put in the opinion of out-groups? How much stock do Biden supporters put in the opinion of Trump supporters? This puts the accusers of antisemitism, which are obviously Jews and Zionists, in a state where nothing they say matters. This is politics of position over politics of reason and persuasion. Thus, hostility to Israel becomes a marker of those on the political left.
It puts the left not against antisemitism itself, but against taking the issue of antisemitism seriously.
I'll try to describe my favorite one here:
If people genuinely think of themselves as morally clean anti-racists, then dropping a bombshell on them that what they said was antisemitic -- which they are socialized to only recognize it's overt extremist forms (like nazism, kkk, great replacement theory), to them signifies that youre calling them akin to all those things.
Antisemitic charges then become this nuclear bomb, that anti-racists can say they are victims of. In their mind, doing something for anti-racist reasons gets them called something they associate with Hitler -- it's no wonder they see it as a dirty trick by the accusers (Jews/Zionists). And if to them, its so obvious that they are not Hitler/extreme form of jew hatred, then the one's doing the accusation must be doing it on purpose. Both an ad-hominem and crying wolf.
If the people doing the accusing are acting in bad faith against you and your antiracist views that you developed within a group paradigm (leftism, universalism), then those doing the accusing are not belonging to the in-group and worse, are opponents of it. They are now outside the community of the good and the progressive. They are now the 'other'. If they are now the other, their opinions are irrelevant. How much stock do in-groups put in the opinion of out-groups? How much stock do Biden supporters put in the opinion of Trump supporters? This puts the accusers of antisemitism, which are obviously Jews and Zionists, in a state where nothing they say matters. This is politics of position over politics of reason and persuasion. Thus, hostility to Israel becomes a marker of those on the political left.
It puts the left not against antisemitism itself, but against taking the issue of antisemitism seriously.
November 22, 2022
Incredibly depressing--but equally incredibly important. While Hirsh focuses on antisemitism in the UK, the themes will be eerily and frighteningly familiar to readers in the US and other "liberal" democracies.
October 29, 2020
Very repetitive but a nice read.
March 10, 2024
I found this difficult, it felt like a personal/work place grievance being aired and should have been a series of WordPress blogs rather than a book.
February 27, 2024
Although I'm not as familiar with British politics, Hirsh nails the problem in a clear and succinct way. There is a good chance I'll be revisiting this text. The self-righteous ‘anti-Zionist’ that masquerades as legitimate critism while silencing and gazlighting the voices who quite reluctantly decry antisemitism.
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews