The horseshoe theory of politics, in which left and right move further and further away from each other until they meet at the other end, has been a defining political trend of our current era. And it is most noticeable on the subjects of anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism, where people who would otherwise disgust each other end up making identical arguments.
The latest such “strange bedfellows” coalition to emerge is one that includes left-wing intellectuals and right-wing white nationalists. The argument they are making boils down to: Jews who seek to fight anti-Semitism are a prominent threat to American democracy.
This has become a trendy position to take, and there is suddenly a glut of op-eds denouncing the threat posed by assertive Jews. The latest is by Michael Roth, president of Wesleyan University, writing for the New York Times.
One characteristic of these op-eds is that they toss a bunch of policies—and, in fact, different cases of enforcement of those policies—together so that anyone who supports any individual application of any of the policies is guilty of fascism by association.
For example, President Trump’s immigration-related enforcement is naturally going to be less popular among Jews, even on the right, who tend to be pro-immigration and wary of mass deportations. So we can expect to see some people who support anti-masking policies at Columbia, for example, to be less supportive of visa revocations.
But Roth wants to pollute even the obviously reasonable policies. The coalition for whom Roth speaks has a very clear position: Anti-Semitism is real but absolutely nothing must be done about it. Here is how he characterizes the administration’s recent moves: “Abductions by government agents; unexplained, indefinite detentions; the targeting of allegedly dangerous ideas; lists of those under government scrutiny; official proclamations full of bluster and bile — Jews have been here before, many times, and it does not end well for us.”
By “the targeting of allegedly dangerous ideas” Roth means the attempt to root out anti-Semitic lawbreaking in public spaces. Is anti-Semitism an “allegedly dangerous idea”? You’ll find a pretty consistent answer from college presidents.
Similarly, by “official proclamations full of bluster and bile,” Roth is referring to… presidential executive orders and campaign promises. Subtext: You know who else liked bluster?
Sometimes it appears as though Roth is deliberately choosing the worst possible version of his own argument. He acknowledges that the Trump administration’s decision to penalize Columbia University came in the wake of actual anti-Semitism. But then he says, “in other ways, Columbia is an odd choice. It has the second highest percentage of Jewish students in the Ivy League. Secretary McMahon has said the government is canceling $400 million of federal support for the school because of its failure to protect Jewish students. Federal cuts to Columbia, however, will disproportionately affect Jewish students.”
Yes, anti-Semitic incidents were often quite common in places with a lot of Jewish students. Also, the sky is blue. But more preposterous is the idea, so clearly spelled out in that paragraph, that punishing Columbia for violating the civil rights of its Jewish students is actually a case of targeting Jews for punishment because of the presence of Jewish students at Columbia.
I remind you: This man is the president of a university.
Speaking of which, here is how he talks about the Jewish students at his own institution who were appalled by the pro-Hamas protests: “Some of the students having grown up in communities of like-mindedness are surprised there is more than one side of an issue. In some cases, that is enough to awaken their anxieties.”
That is an astonishing level of contempt for a university president to express, in public, toward his students. But Roth is triggered by them, because he believes very strongly that there were very fine people on both sides.
Roth argues that Trump is a hypocrite because he is fighting anti-Semitism while tolerating the presence of anti-Semites in his own administration. This is undeniably true. And it is why I have been heartened to see the president make statements and take actions that the anti-Semites in the administration oppose. Roth feels otherwise.
On the same subject, Roth says that the president and his circle have legitimized people like Candace Owens and Nick Fuentes, and then says “These are our defenders?”
But Owens and Fuentes agree with Roth! “Republicans can’t claim to defend free speech while simultaneously using government to punish American citizens for criticizing Israel,” Fuentes posted. Regarding Khalil’s detention, Owens posted: “I will never cheerlead for things that are meant to chill speech—ever.” To paraphrase Roth: These are his defenders?
Meanwhile, to back up his own arguments, he quotes M. Gessen, a New Yorker writer who compared Israel’s counteroffensive in Gaza to the Nazi liquidation of European ghettos. He also quotes a piece at 972 Magazine that includes, in a section of the piece Roth doesn’t quote, the claim that “traumatic episodes in Jewish history have been evoked to justify Israel’s onslaught on Gaza and crack down on those who criticize it.”
The fight against anti-Semitism will never require unanimity. But it will require, you know, fighting anti-Semitism.
