My wife has a classification system for people. There are Jews, and there are antisemites. She does recognise the righteous amongst the nations, but considers them to be such a small subset that they're barely worth counting (in the numbers sense, as individuals they deserve much praise).
I used to think she was pessimistic, now I think she is overly optimistic, because there is a not inconsequential overlap covering antisemitic Jews.
That being said, once you recognise that almost everyone is antisemitic, it's freeing. You can work with these people when your goals overlap (eg, support BLM if you think police are overly aggressive against blacks, support the Federalist Society if you think activist judges are a problem), and not be shocked when turn on you. Nixon was both a horrible antisemite, and a true friend to the Jews.
My problem with Gaza protestors isn't their antisemitism, it's that they're pro genocide. I'm fine with them hating Jews, thinking our rituals our weird, that our observances are out of touch, etc. I'm not fine with them advocating for our death (which is exactly what anti zionism is). If I do try to reason with them, I try to point out their hypocrisy, that they don't care about other conflicts. This is because they don't care about being an antisemite, but they generally do care about being hypocrites.
"Nixon was both a horrible antisemite, and a true friend to the Jews."
I appreciate this observation. I think humans are generally, to borrow a phrase from a songwriter I like, "bundles of lies and contradictions". To often, we're loathe to accept that two seemingly opposed things can be true of a person, even though it's probably true about most of us.
Loves to debate. Not because they care about truth but because they enjoy wearing down Jewish people’s energy and resolve. Demands "proof" of every antisemitic act but dismisses all evidence as biased. Always moves the goalposts. Will insist that they’re the real victims of censorship. Usually white, male, highly educated. And bloody exhausting.
Number one could also be called “The Social Justice Warrior”. They fight for ALL Social Justice Causes*.
*Unless you’re Jewish. Or a woman. Or Israeli. Or lived in Israel at some point. Or know someone who lived in Israel. Or have thought about Israel at any point in your life with anything other than complete disgust.
And, the last category would also be exemplified by Andrew Anglin, or Dan Bilzerian.
"Believes in their power to stop real violence through activism..."
This one really strikes a chord with me. It seems to have become culturally endemic since the rebellion of the 1960s generation and their "long march through the institutions". It's an outlook that isn't able to truly grasp the nature of evil and it's persistence in human hearts, life, and history, and is therefore naive about what is required to actually achieve peace. The stereotype of people who think we can solve all the worlds ills by holding hands and singing Kumbaya is a caricature of this group, but it's rooted in reality. I think too many people today are just incapable of accepting the reality that many Arab Muslims hate Jews, not because they are oppressed, etc. but because of the teachings of their religion and perhaps for no specific reason at all, but simply because humans are often prone to irrationality.
Concerning appeals to authority, I do think they can be legitimate if we know the person speaking really is a genuine authority on the subject to which they speak and also someone who genuinely seeks truth, but too often people assume those two things without verifying that they are the case. And of course, even then, they could just be plain wrong. We all rely on authorities in various areas of our lives because we don't have the time or bandwidth to know everything, but an appeal to authority should be a red flag, letting us know there's something to be investigated here, rather than something that ends the argument.
“The Andrew Tate” is just one of many types of right wing antisemite but it alone poses more danger than everyone else you mentioned. Why? Because they’re the ones who have the White House behind them and most of the Republican Party in their thrall. The other four are just a variation of “politically powerless campus hippie.”
There's a reason that I have this list ordered by level of toxicity. :)
That being said, we should not minimize the dangers that the others pose. Some might be politically powerless, others wield more power than they should be allowed.
That’s false and disingenuous. Those groups would not be dangerous under Harris because they are outside the norm of the Democratic Party. Right wing antisemitism and violence is well within the Republican norm.
Unfortunately, you're ignoring the fact that the Democrats, while in power, failed to set any limits on these cretins, and some (i.e. Bernie Sanders) openly pandered to them. That's one of the reasons why they lost, IMO.
No, I’m not ignoring it. I’m rejecting it as a premise because it wasn’t what happened. But anyway, congrats on helping bring about the current situation with these sorts of casual falsehoods!
That's false and either disingenuous or naive. Democrats have had no hesitancy to back calls for the destruction of Israel, and have championed encampments that assaulted and harassed Jews.
The amount of hate crimes against Jews went to record highs under a Democrat, and there was no public outcry or pushback from either rank and file or leadership. Democrats have chosen to associate with Islamists. To deny the presence of violent antisemites in that party is nonsensical.
So you accuse me of endangering Jews by not acknowledging the dangers of the right enough, while yesterday another reader accused me in a similar tone of endangering Jews by not being conservative enough. Which one of you is right?
Jill, I am sorry, but people like this Silverman and the others who accuse you of endangering Jews. There is no satisfying them. It does not matter how you try to explain, they will always call you wrong.
This is accurate. Well put. I've encountered all of them at one time or another. There is one other though, the actual Nazi. They live in the shadows these days but they are still out there.
This is an excellent survey of where anti Semitism can be found today -I would have added Tucker Carlson ,Candace Owens and the members of the Squad and their devotees to the list
You’re just plain stupid in your snide name-calling. For example, implying that being at a protest at 2:00 PM indicates unemployment, etc, etc. You’re not liberal. You are just a republican posing as a liberal.
Jill another good piece, and you laid it out pretty well. I like the categories you listed, with the definitions on each one. More learned than me, as I only have one, and that is people who hate us, and always have.
I have listened to this talk by Yossi Klein Halevi a few times in the past year (For Heavens Sake podcast, Aug 21, 2024, episode 138). I don't agree completely with everything he says, but I always learn so much from listening to him. I think this talk is the single most enlightening explanation of antisemitism and antizionism that I have heard.
My wife has a classification system for people. There are Jews, and there are antisemites. She does recognise the righteous amongst the nations, but considers them to be such a small subset that they're barely worth counting (in the numbers sense, as individuals they deserve much praise).
I used to think she was pessimistic, now I think she is overly optimistic, because there is a not inconsequential overlap covering antisemitic Jews.
That being said, once you recognise that almost everyone is antisemitic, it's freeing. You can work with these people when your goals overlap (eg, support BLM if you think police are overly aggressive against blacks, support the Federalist Society if you think activist judges are a problem), and not be shocked when turn on you. Nixon was both a horrible antisemite, and a true friend to the Jews.
My problem with Gaza protestors isn't their antisemitism, it's that they're pro genocide. I'm fine with them hating Jews, thinking our rituals our weird, that our observances are out of touch, etc. I'm not fine with them advocating for our death (which is exactly what anti zionism is). If I do try to reason with them, I try to point out their hypocrisy, that they don't care about other conflicts. This is because they don't care about being an antisemite, but they generally do care about being hypocrites.
"Nixon was both a horrible antisemite, and a true friend to the Jews."
I appreciate this observation. I think humans are generally, to borrow a phrase from a songwriter I like, "bundles of lies and contradictions". To often, we're loathe to accept that two seemingly opposed things can be true of a person, even though it's probably true about most of us.
Your wife needs medical help in dealing with her profound paranoia. I hope you’ll help her find it.
I always appreciate expert medical opinions Dr. Nelson. Could you send me the address of your office so I can know where to send the payment?
One more for the pot...
The Eternal Sophist
Loves to debate. Not because they care about truth but because they enjoy wearing down Jewish people’s energy and resolve. Demands "proof" of every antisemitic act but dismisses all evidence as biased. Always moves the goalposts. Will insist that they’re the real victims of censorship. Usually white, male, highly educated. And bloody exhausting.
Number one could also be called “The Social Justice Warrior”. They fight for ALL Social Justice Causes*.
*Unless you’re Jewish. Or a woman. Or Israeli. Or lived in Israel at some point. Or know someone who lived in Israel. Or have thought about Israel at any point in your life with anything other than complete disgust.
And, the last category would also be exemplified by Andrew Anglin, or Dan Bilzerian.
"Believes in their power to stop real violence through activism..."
This one really strikes a chord with me. It seems to have become culturally endemic since the rebellion of the 1960s generation and their "long march through the institutions". It's an outlook that isn't able to truly grasp the nature of evil and it's persistence in human hearts, life, and history, and is therefore naive about what is required to actually achieve peace. The stereotype of people who think we can solve all the worlds ills by holding hands and singing Kumbaya is a caricature of this group, but it's rooted in reality. I think too many people today are just incapable of accepting the reality that many Arab Muslims hate Jews, not because they are oppressed, etc. but because of the teachings of their religion and perhaps for no specific reason at all, but simply because humans are often prone to irrationality.
Concerning appeals to authority, I do think they can be legitimate if we know the person speaking really is a genuine authority on the subject to which they speak and also someone who genuinely seeks truth, but too often people assume those two things without verifying that they are the case. And of course, even then, they could just be plain wrong. We all rely on authorities in various areas of our lives because we don't have the time or bandwidth to know everything, but an appeal to authority should be a red flag, letting us know there's something to be investigated here, rather than something that ends the argument.
“The Andrew Tate” is just one of many types of right wing antisemite but it alone poses more danger than everyone else you mentioned. Why? Because they’re the ones who have the White House behind them and most of the Republican Party in their thrall. The other four are just a variation of “politically powerless campus hippie.”
There's a reason that I have this list ordered by level of toxicity. :)
That being said, we should not minimize the dangers that the others pose. Some might be politically powerless, others wield more power than they should be allowed.
Under the current administration. Under the hypothetical Harris administration those other groups would be the dangerous ones.
Left and Right are not useful paradigms for antisemitism. Ascendant and non ascendant is more relevant.
That’s false and disingenuous. Those groups would not be dangerous under Harris because they are outside the norm of the Democratic Party. Right wing antisemitism and violence is well within the Republican norm.
Unfortunately, you're ignoring the fact that the Democrats, while in power, failed to set any limits on these cretins, and some (i.e. Bernie Sanders) openly pandered to them. That's one of the reasons why they lost, IMO.
Oh hey I hope this helps. https://forward.com/fast-forward/716347/antisemitism-bill-congress-jews-jesus/
No, I’m not ignoring it. I’m rejecting it as a premise because it wasn’t what happened. But anyway, congrats on helping bring about the current situation with these sorts of casual falsehoods!
That's false and either disingenuous or naive. Democrats have had no hesitancy to back calls for the destruction of Israel, and have championed encampments that assaulted and harassed Jews.
The amount of hate crimes against Jews went to record highs under a Democrat, and there was no public outcry or pushback from either rank and file or leadership. Democrats have chosen to associate with Islamists. To deny the presence of violent antisemites in that party is nonsensical.
that’s not how I recall it, and I’d really appreciate gentiles dialing down the concern trolling, please and thank you.
אוקיי אחי. אני חייב ללכת לבית הכנסת לקראת שבת עכשיו, אבל אפשר להמשיך את זה מוצ"ש. שמוק.
אני דורשת שתפסיקו את העליונות היהודית הזו באופן מיידי
Va-te faire enculer.
Well it’s been fun, Jill, but I hope you wake up at some point and stop endangering Jews with the pick-me bullshit.
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/09/04/politics/trump-rally-nazi-sympathizer-january-6-rioter
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/jan/21/the-gesture-speaks-for-itself-germans-divided-over-musks-apparent-nazi-salute
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittsburgh_synagogue_shooting?wprov=sfti1#
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2025/01/22/camp-auschwitz-jan-6-rioter-trump-pardoned/77884230007/
So you accuse me of endangering Jews by not acknowledging the dangers of the right enough, while yesterday another reader accused me in a similar tone of endangering Jews by not being conservative enough. Which one of you is right?
Jill, I am sorry, but people like this Silverman and the others who accuse you of endangering Jews. There is no satisfying them. It does not matter how you try to explain, they will always call you wrong.
I’d say both you and that other reader are endangering Jews and you should both reexamine your choices in life.
This is accurate. Well put. I've encountered all of them at one time or another. There is one other though, the actual Nazi. They live in the shadows these days but they are still out there.
This is an excellent survey of where anti Semitism can be found today -I would have added Tucker Carlson ,Candace Owens and the members of the Squad and their devotees to the list
You’re just plain stupid in your snide name-calling. For example, implying that being at a protest at 2:00 PM indicates unemployment, etc, etc. You’re not liberal. You are just a republican posing as a liberal.
Jill another good piece, and you laid it out pretty well. I like the categories you listed, with the definitions on each one. More learned than me, as I only have one, and that is people who hate us, and always have.
I have listened to this talk by Yossi Klein Halevi a few times in the past year (For Heavens Sake podcast, Aug 21, 2024, episode 138). I don't agree completely with everything he says, but I always learn so much from listening to him. I think this talk is the single most enlightening explanation of antisemitism and antizionism that I have heard.
https://podcasts.apple.com/nz/podcast/israel-at-war-antisemitism-anti-zionism-and-anti/id1522222281?i=1000666095449