Hi Alan! Great piece and very thought provoking. I live in the U.S. and would consider myself democrat. I have definitely fallen for the “pro-Palestine” rhetoric and anti-Zionism. Admittedly, I don’t know much about the history of the Middle East conflict. I think that hearing about the the horrific conditions in Gaza led me to a very binary way of thinking of the situation. All along, I have wanted Jews to feel completely safe and what happened on October 7th was absolutely devastating.
Hi Alyssa, thank you for your thoughts. I think it was, given our media/social media landscape, unfortunately, all too easy to get drawn into a binary, narrative-warfare view of both the war itself and the wider historical conflict. Particularly given the unprecedented "access" to the horrors of war on our screens, it is hard not to have quite visceral reactions to such images. But I'm glad to hear that this never compromised your view of October 7th and the right of Jewish people to be safe.
As it happens, the silence from the activist core of the Western "pro-Palestinian" movement at the signing of the ceasefire is deafening, confirming what many of us suspected: that it was never really about the interests of ordinary Palestinians in Gaza for them, and more about a pathological hate of Israel and Jews.
I hope you find some of the previous essays on this conflict here similarly thought-provoking.
"Soviet origins of the “anti-Zionist” trope and the nexus with the Marxist-Leninist desire to eradicate any unique Jewish identity distinguishable from society". - I want to add a nuance: the Soviet ideology assumed the destruction of any uniqueness in favor of collective, class identity in favor of so-called internationalism. They had a political goal: the government sought to destroy all forms of organized religion and nationalism that could compete with the party's allegiance. Religion and nationalism were oppressed in general.
Thank you, my friend. Indeed, the view that specific aspects of identity, whether nationalist or religious, were byproducts of capitalism and would also disappear under universal socialism was not unique to Jewish identity. I wrote in a previous essay:
"In relation to temporality, however, the antecedent was the anti-Semitism within Marxism, which derived from the Marxist doctrines of secularism and class-based economic determinism, which viewed the Jews as a relic of a Medieval past that would be emancipated, and disappear as a distinct group, under socialism. In ‘The Left, the Right, and the Jews’, W.D. Rubinstein draws attention to the role of highly influential Jewish Marxists, such as Leon Trotsky and Rosa Luxemburg, in shaping this particular view of Zionism within Marxism, one that rejected Jewish self-determination in favour of a theory that anti-Semitism was a byproduct of capitalism and, along with any distinct Jewish identity, would also disappear under universal socialism. Lenin’s influence on Soviet policies was one which supported national self-determination movements (when it suited the Soviets), but rejected the concept of an independent Jewish nationalism divisible from the socialist revolutionary cause."
An interesting further nuance is that when Israel was first established, given the foundation of socialist principles and the kibbutz system, the Soviets were initially disposed to the little state; once it appeared that Israel would not be a vanguard for a socialist revolution in the Middle East, the script flipped to portray Israel as a product of "colonialism" to be targeted as part of the internationalist revolution.
P.s., I have also seen your other comment, I will have some time to respond properly tomorrow.
Interestingly, I checked the full crime report https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/hate-crime-england-and-wales-year-ending-march-2025, and I have found that the crime data is categorized into 5 groups, with "race or ethnicity" as the top one and "religion" is on 4 place. There is a chart, "Proportion of offences targeted against Jews and Muslims, by offence type, year ending March 2025," that demonstrates that crimes are targeted at both Muslims and Jews. Backed by this data, I suggest that the problem is rather a crisis of institutional competence in managing all forms of fanaticism and hate crimes. Shouldn't we embrace the structural symmetry of suffering and seek a sustainable solution, dedicating our efforts to fighting all forms of hatred simultaneously? Otherwise, it will turn into a never-ending holy war over who suffers the most or who can recite more historical incidents of violence against each other from the dawn of time. Approaches to the problem should include community partnership, not only state security agencies oversight (I guess, the UK Prevent program was criticized for amplifying stigmatization). The universal zero-tolerance approach is the only way to build a broad political consensus, instead of protecting groups from each other.
When you cite horrific examples of the glorification of anti-Semitism on campuses, I admit, it is unforgivable and must be stopped. But citing the stat "3 out of 4 British Muslims do not believe that Hamas committed murder" might be perceived as a demonizing narrative support. Why? bc using a religious group in the context of a certain political ideology is methodologically flawed and shouldn't be presented as a measure of threat. It feeds conflict and alienation as well as anti-Semitism. A sustainable solution requires a bilateral institutional fight against all forms of hatred, which cannot be achieved if one form of hatred is ridiculed.
"From examining the conduct of the state, we moved to a more personal question, asking: “To what extent are you personally troubled or not troubled by the reports of famine and suffering among the Palestinian population in Gaza?” A very large majority of Jewish respondents reported that they are not so troubled or not at all troubled personally by events in Gaza (79%), while the majority of Arabs said that they are very troubled or somewhat troubled (86%)." - I don’t find it morally justified, too, honestly.
Moral disengagement and Cognitive Dissonance are theories that might explain how people try to avoid moral ambivalence on both sides of conflict, especially if fueled by propaganda and echo chambers. Such disengagement is recorded among populations of other conflicts too.
In conclusion, fighting on the moral battle is essential for shaping public opinion, but it's rarely enough.
Hi Alan! Great piece and very thought provoking. I live in the U.S. and would consider myself democrat. I have definitely fallen for the “pro-Palestine” rhetoric and anti-Zionism. Admittedly, I don’t know much about the history of the Middle East conflict. I think that hearing about the the horrific conditions in Gaza led me to a very binary way of thinking of the situation. All along, I have wanted Jews to feel completely safe and what happened on October 7th was absolutely devastating.
Hi Alyssa, thank you for your thoughts. I think it was, given our media/social media landscape, unfortunately, all too easy to get drawn into a binary, narrative-warfare view of both the war itself and the wider historical conflict. Particularly given the unprecedented "access" to the horrors of war on our screens, it is hard not to have quite visceral reactions to such images. But I'm glad to hear that this never compromised your view of October 7th and the right of Jewish people to be safe.
As it happens, the silence from the activist core of the Western "pro-Palestinian" movement at the signing of the ceasefire is deafening, confirming what many of us suspected: that it was never really about the interests of ordinary Palestinians in Gaza for them, and more about a pathological hate of Israel and Jews.
I hope you find some of the previous essays on this conflict here similarly thought-provoking.
Bw,
Alan
I am so grateful for your thoughts and writing over the last two years. Thank you so much Alan.
My pleasure, Melanie, thank you for reading and supporting, and I hope this essay resonated with you.
"Soviet origins of the “anti-Zionist” trope and the nexus with the Marxist-Leninist desire to eradicate any unique Jewish identity distinguishable from society". - I want to add a nuance: the Soviet ideology assumed the destruction of any uniqueness in favor of collective, class identity in favor of so-called internationalism. They had a political goal: the government sought to destroy all forms of organized religion and nationalism that could compete with the party's allegiance. Religion and nationalism were oppressed in general.
Thank you, my friend. Indeed, the view that specific aspects of identity, whether nationalist or religious, were byproducts of capitalism and would also disappear under universal socialism was not unique to Jewish identity. I wrote in a previous essay:
"In relation to temporality, however, the antecedent was the anti-Semitism within Marxism, which derived from the Marxist doctrines of secularism and class-based economic determinism, which viewed the Jews as a relic of a Medieval past that would be emancipated, and disappear as a distinct group, under socialism. In ‘The Left, the Right, and the Jews’, W.D. Rubinstein draws attention to the role of highly influential Jewish Marxists, such as Leon Trotsky and Rosa Luxemburg, in shaping this particular view of Zionism within Marxism, one that rejected Jewish self-determination in favour of a theory that anti-Semitism was a byproduct of capitalism and, along with any distinct Jewish identity, would also disappear under universal socialism. Lenin’s influence on Soviet policies was one which supported national self-determination movements (when it suited the Soviets), but rejected the concept of an independent Jewish nationalism divisible from the socialist revolutionary cause."
An interesting further nuance is that when Israel was first established, given the foundation of socialist principles and the kibbutz system, the Soviets were initially disposed to the little state; once it appeared that Israel would not be a vanguard for a socialist revolution in the Middle East, the script flipped to portray Israel as a product of "colonialism" to be targeted as part of the internationalist revolution.
P.s., I have also seen your other comment, I will have some time to respond properly tomorrow.
Bw,
Alan
Interestingly, I checked the full crime report https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/hate-crime-england-and-wales-year-ending-march-2025, and I have found that the crime data is categorized into 5 groups, with "race or ethnicity" as the top one and "religion" is on 4 place. There is a chart, "Proportion of offences targeted against Jews and Muslims, by offence type, year ending March 2025," that demonstrates that crimes are targeted at both Muslims and Jews. Backed by this data, I suggest that the problem is rather a crisis of institutional competence in managing all forms of fanaticism and hate crimes. Shouldn't we embrace the structural symmetry of suffering and seek a sustainable solution, dedicating our efforts to fighting all forms of hatred simultaneously? Otherwise, it will turn into a never-ending holy war over who suffers the most or who can recite more historical incidents of violence against each other from the dawn of time. Approaches to the problem should include community partnership, not only state security agencies oversight (I guess, the UK Prevent program was criticized for amplifying stigmatization). The universal zero-tolerance approach is the only way to build a broad political consensus, instead of protecting groups from each other.
When you cite horrific examples of the glorification of anti-Semitism on campuses, I admit, it is unforgivable and must be stopped. But citing the stat "3 out of 4 British Muslims do not believe that Hamas committed murder" might be perceived as a demonizing narrative support. Why? bc using a religious group in the context of a certain political ideology is methodologically flawed and shouldn't be presented as a measure of threat. It feeds conflict and alienation as well as anti-Semitism. A sustainable solution requires a bilateral institutional fight against all forms of hatred, which cannot be achieved if one form of hatred is ridiculed.
May I give the other poll example: https://en.idi.org.il/articles/60357
"From examining the conduct of the state, we moved to a more personal question, asking: “To what extent are you personally troubled or not troubled by the reports of famine and suffering among the Palestinian population in Gaza?” A very large majority of Jewish respondents reported that they are not so troubled or not at all troubled personally by events in Gaza (79%), while the majority of Arabs said that they are very troubled or somewhat troubled (86%)." - I don’t find it morally justified, too, honestly.
Moral disengagement and Cognitive Dissonance are theories that might explain how people try to avoid moral ambivalence on both sides of conflict, especially if fueled by propaganda and echo chambers. Such disengagement is recorded among populations of other conflicts too.
In conclusion, fighting on the moral battle is essential for shaping public opinion, but it's rarely enough.