Intersecting Tensions: Right-Wing Antisemitism, Identity Politics, and the Israel-Palestine Conflict
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): A Further Inquiry
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/08/27
Dr. Alon Milwicki is a senior research analyst in the Intelligence Project at the Southern Poverty Law Center.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: I interviewed a colleague because she was writing about religious-based identity politics. This is the basis for the idea of this interview. The term “identity politics” can be overused, making it difficult to provide a proper critique. Antisemitism is an inversion of that, where you’re not adopting an identity for political gain but instead asserting it about someone else to create unfavourable political currency for them and then relatively positive political currency for yourself. What’s your take on that? If you can tie someone to being antisemitic, especially post-October 7th, it can have severe implications.
Dr. Alon Milwicki: Antisemitism is currently a prevalent form of racism. Many populists talk about antisemitism. Labelling someone as antisemitic is a potent form of demonization, considering the context of Hamas’s actions. Accusing someone of antisemitism implies they support Hamas and terrorism. In post-9/11 America, being labelled pro-terrorist is highly damaging.
Your statement is accurate, but it can be somewhat flipped. In the effort to be the most pro-Israel, it often has nothing to do with actual Israeli politics. Most people need to familiarize themselves with Israeli politics. A recent poll showed that almost three-quarters of Israelis oppose Netanyahu, yet the entire Republican party in the US supports him. If they genuinely favour democratic societies and the will of the people, they should listen to the Israeli people rather than project their beliefs onto them.
In an attempt to prove they are so pro-Semitic, they feel the need to be extremely pro-Israel. Projecting this image of pro-Israel deflects the negative identity of antisemitism. Thus, there is identity politics surrounding antisemitism, with the pro-Israel trope being prominently displayed. You’ll likely see many Republican candidates up for reelection declaring themselves pro-America, America first, and pro-Israel.
Labelling themselves as pro-Israel has nothing to do with genuine allyship. The US and Israel are so interdependent that there is no scenario where America will not support Israel from a foreign policy perspective. Based on my limited knowledge and experiences from previous workplaces, it is highly unlikely. If these individuals in government are unaware, it indicates either a lack of diligence or dishonesty. If they are dishonest, one must question their motives. If they are simply uninformed, they ought to be better informed.
Jacobsen: Indeed. What about the lesser risk posed by state-based issues?
Milwicki: If Marjorie Taylor Greene claims to be pro-Israel but previously discussed Jewish space lasers, she should reassess her knowledge.
Jacobsen: How do you perceive American campus protests, where individuals oppose Israeli policies but support Palestinians while condemning terrorism? There is also a mix of individuals who join these protests without fully understanding the issues, potentially feeding into antisemitism. This can result in an inadvertent moral misstep towards antisemitism on the left wing.
Milwicki: The reporting on these protests often differs from the actual events. Some protests have been significantly disrupted, with certain groups attending specifically to promote their narratives. Antisemitic groups have been known to participate in these protests. For instance, the JDL, listed by the FBI as a terrorist organization, was reportedly seen at a campus protest. While this might not have been confirmed, I recall reading about it. College students’ involvement is significant. Many believe they can rekindle the civil rights movement. This is unlikely in the 21st century. Protesting is an American right and should be exercised.
Whether through sit-ins or campus protests, these activities are permissible. However, when swastikas are displayed, one must question whether this stems from ignorance or extremism. The depiction of the Israeli flag with a swastika is antisemitic. Although the swastika is shocking, its presence is generally limited. Most college protests are simply that—protests. There is nothing inherently wrong with them. However, the narrative that criticizing Israel equates to antisemitism is a right-wing construct. By this logic, 75% of Israelis would be considered antisemitic.
Following this reasoning, one must question the assumption that antisemitism began on college campuses only a few months ago. Antisemitism, racism, and misogyny have always been present on college campuses. These institutions are microcosms of society. Most college individuals are between 16 and 25 years old, forming their identities. This environment can be a breeding ground for both positive and negative behaviours. College campuses indeed reflect broader societal issues. There are valid reasons to critique the Israeli government, but this must also involve understanding Hamas. We must acknowledge the context provided by the widely circulated videos.
We have all seen the atrocities, not just those committed by Hamas, but also the bombings carried out by Israel. We need to understand that Hamas frequently uses civilian targets. They are experts in propaganda and have succeeded in the propaganda war. The only source of information many people rely on regarding the death toll in Gaza is Hamas. This does not account for those whom Hamas has endangered or killed. Netanyahu correctly pointed out that if relief aid reaches Gaza, Hamas does not distribute it to the people; they allocate it to their supporters and themselves. This is typical behaviour for a terrorist organization, and it must be understood that the first victims of Hamas are the Palestinians.
Palestinians have been victims of Hamas for nearly 20 years, living under a terrorist regime that controls all aspects of their lives. This needs to be recognized. However, eliminating Hamas does not mean the destruction of Palestine or the erasure of Palestinian identity. It also does not grant Israel the freedom to act without restraint. I am not a specialist in Middle Eastern affairs, but as a historian who has studied antisemitism for many years, I have a basic understanding of Hamas and Israel, which is necessary to grasp how these issues are appropriated or misused.
I do not oppose campus protests and do not believe they should be banned. Organizations like SJP and BLM should have the right to protest. While some activists have made inappropriate statements, this does not justify banning their protests. Regardless of one’s perspective, certain activists say problematic things. For example, right-wing activists often make offensive remarks. One could argue that the right’s current focus on antisemitism, particularly after October 7th, is an attempt to shift the narrative back to the post-9/11 era, emphasizing Islamic terrorism as the primary threat despite FBI statistics showing that white supremacy and far-right groups are the largest domestic terrorist threats in America.
This narrative shift involves using Israel to further their agenda. This is a novel point, and I appreciate you mentioning it, Scott. I used to tell my students that my role was to impart wisdom, and their role was to record it. It may sound trivial, but hopefully, it addresses your question. College campuses are easy targets for such narratives, but this does not mean that problematic behaviour does not occur there. Antisemitic incidents do happen within these protests. However, condemning all colleges or universities is unjustified. The United States has many prestigious institutions that attract students and professors worldwide, although recent trends may affect this. Those who claim to be First Amendment purists should question why they are so keen on limiting freedom of expression and education.
Jacobsen: That is an important point to consider. I cannot think of a better way to conclude this discussion.
License & Copyright
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. ©Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use or duplication of material without express permission from Scott Douglas Jacobsen strictly prohibited, excerpts and links must use full credit to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with direction to the original content.
In-Sight Publishing 