The agonised American Jewish debate

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.

I would not normally go anywhere near a contentious intra-community debate, particularly if it was not my own (though I am not sure that I belong to a coherent one). But I have a lot of friends in the US and UK who are Jewish and I have been deeply struck by their reaction to the horrors of what is now widely called 10/7 across social media.

I am not referring so much to people’s revulsion at the hideous nature of the slaughter Hamas carried out, or to its scale; I mean the failure of many other groups, particularly on university campuses, to share in Jewish anguish or even to acknowledge it as legitimate. For more on the campus wars, and the widening divide in the Democratic party, read this great piece by my colleague Joshua Chaffin. This issue is as fraught as any I have ever encountered. What, you may ask, would thus possess me to tiptoe through this minefield? Because I am increasingly convinced that the fallout will have a significant long-term impact on the American left — and on the broader debate about identity in modern democracy. The main aim of this note is to raise questions, not to offer conclusions.

Rana, in the Park Slope neighbourhood of Brooklyn, you live in as close to the headquarters of US progressivism as it gets. From what I recall, the area was blanketed in Stars and Stripes after 9/11. When George Floyd died, it was awash in Black Lives Matters flags. After Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine last year, the BLM posters were joined by the Ukrainian flag. Through most of the past few years, the LGBTQ colours have become a common sight. Have you seen any symbols of solidarity with the 1,400 Jews who were killed on October 7? Where I live in Georgetown DC, I have yet to spot anything.

Some of my Jewish friends attribute this disparity to anti-Semitism. If an Islamist group had slaughtered a group of Palestinian Christian nuns, say, we would be displaying something to do with Bethlehem. If the Jewish state really had wiped out a hospital in Gaza, we would doubtless be waving the Palestinian flag. Alas, something along those lines seems likely to happen if Israel goes ahead with its ground invasion of Gaza. 

Other Jewish friends have a somewhat different reaction. They point to the ideology of US progressivism, which ranks victims in an order that is pretty much the mirror image of the perceived white patriarchal hierarchy. Some victims are worthy; others are not. As Jewish students discovered in a class at Stanford last week, Jews are defined as belonging to the oppressor group and are therefore undeserving of sympathy. The instructor told one Jewish student that the 6mn victims of the Holocaust were far fewer than colonisation’s death toll and that Israel — and by implication, all Jews — were part of the colonial problem. He then asked a group of students to stand in the back of the class and said: “This is what Israel does to the Palestinians.” If that instructor had downplayed the crime of slavery, or questioned colonialism, he would probably have been fired that very day. At the moment, he is merely suspended.

It does not matter what you think of Israeli history, or of Benjamin Netanyahu’s government (I am a militant critic); it should be impossible to view any racial ordering with equanimity.

Many American Jews see the diverse reactions to the October 7 attack as a turning point that has shaken their faith that they live in an assimilated society. I think the shock is particularly strong for progressive Jewish Americans, who might have assumed that the solidarity they felt for other groups would be reciprocated — irrespective of people’s stances on the two-state solution or whether Israel should become a binational secular state. After October 7, the chant “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” has taken on a much more ominous tone. Who could now trust the good intentions of those reciting that chant? For the record, I believe strongly in the two-state solution. Both Israel and Palestine urgently need new leadership.

As I say, I would not presume to offer any conclusions or advice to American Jews, or indeed to Palestinian Americans, though I hope Swampians of all backgrounds will email their thoughts. I do have one observation to make, however, about the US progressive movement in general. Once upon a time, Martin Luther King’s glorious vision of a nation where children would “not be judged by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character”, was a rallying cry among Americans who wanted change. Now MLK’s words are mostly quoted on the right (often for highly cynical reasons).

Today’s left seems too caught up with its “systems” and “structures” to have faith in the dream of a common humanity. The fact that there are far-right Israelis who do not view Arabs as human is all the more reason to return to MLK. There can be no conceivable justification for glamorising a bloodthirsty theocratic movement such as Hamas. Rana, I have barely scratched the surface of a highly complicated and emotional subject. Inevitably, my thoughts are impressionistic. Yet I have a sinking feeling we will be returning to this topic in the near future. In the meantime, I’d be fascinated by your response.  

Recommended reading

• My column this week looked at the other Jordan — not the planned Biden summit in Amman that was cancelled after the Gaza hospital tragedy, but the Jim Jordan who has now twice failed to get a majority.

• I wrote last week about the significance of the Polish elections. As Anne Applebaum writes in The Atlantic, “Poland shows that autocracy is not inevitable”. The news from Poland broke like a sharp ray of light through our grim skies.

• Finally, and to return to the topic of this note, do read Simon Schama in last weekend’s FT: Let us be to grieve, rage and weep. 

Rana Foroohar responds

Ed, like you, I’ve been stunned, though not surprised, by the sentiment on campuses and the failure of university leaders in particular to really speak out against the massacre of innocent people by Hamas. I say this with incredible sympathy for the plight of people in Gaza. I have big problems with Israeli politics, and understand that the longer term Israeli-Palestinian conflict has not been a fair fight for the Palestinians in many ways. That said, there’s just no question in my mind that what Hamas did isn’t “resistance” or retribution or anything like that. It’s murder. Of innocent people. In particularly brutal ways. End of story. 

I think one big problem is that much of the media and the public at large has lost all capacity for nuance. You can say Hamas is in the wrong and still disagree with Israel’s treatment of Palestinians long term. You can grieve loss on both sides, even as you make it clear that what happened on October 7 was a terrorist attack that must be condemned without any kind of ridiculous academic discussions of victim hierarchies. It’s not a hot take. It’s not sexy. It’s nuanced. It’s complicated. And it requires coming out of one’s literal and digital silo bubble. 

I totally agree with you that if the American left keeps marching down this path of identity and victimhood, it will indeed be its undoing. For sure, let’s bring on MLK. And for that matter, Joe Biden, who did a lovely job, I thought, in his speech from Israel. His handling of this so far has been brave, practical, and balanced. 

Your feedback

And now a word from our Swampians . . .

In response to “America’s new growth model”:
“It seems to me that Bidenomics is nothing more than the intervention in the economy by the federal government. Whether it is post-pandemic fiscal giveaways or new bills, one with a name that bears no resemblance to its actual contents, this is not real economic activity or growth. It is artificial and as with all industrial policy (the bills aforementioned) it will probably not end well. And, while job ‘satisfaction’ may be higher than in the last 36 years, how productive are all of these people with their flexible hours and work-life balance?” — Henry D Wolfe

In response to “Biden’s Mexican border nightmare”:
“The adoption of the term ‘migrants’ for the border pressures in Europe and North America is an advance over the reflexive use of the term ‘illegal immigrants’. But we should enhance the accuracy. These are mostly ‘refugees’, not merely people casually moving from one economic condition to another more advantageous. Braving the stormy Mediterranean, Southwest deserts, and the Darién Gap with infants in tow are markers for desperate flight from abominable and otherwise unavoidable conditions.” — Anton Dubrick