Ladies and Gentlemen, The Weekend

A few thoughts on the anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism debate. Haley-mentum in New Hampshire? The George Santos melodrama and one of my favorite recent musical interludes.

I’m Michael A. Cohen, and this is Truth and Consequences: A no-holds-barred look at the absurdities, hypocrisies, and surreality. If you were sent this email or are a free subscriber and would like to become a paid subscriber, you can sign up here.

If money is tight or you’re already up to eyeballs in subscriptions, here’s another idea — share this article. Email it to a friend (or even an enemy). Post it on Facebook, Twitter, or LinkedIn. Text or email it to your wife, husband, mother, father, brother, sister, or even your creepy second cousin in Rehovot. Word of mouth is often the best way to build support for a creative endeavor, so if everyone here sends it to just one person … it would be much appreciated!

Anti-Zionism is Anti-Semitism, Part 1

Shutterstock

This is an excellent piece by Arash Azizi and, in particular, features an excellent dissection of the ridiculous argument that Israel is illegitimate because it’s an ethno-nationalist state.

Progressives have many good reasons for treating nationalism with skepticism. But proponents of Palestine seem to miss the irony that, even as they disavow any idea of Jewish nationalism as verboten ethno-supremacy, they are asserting a rival form of nationalism—Palestinian nationalism, which comes with its own rich traditions and history. The Palestinian flag they wave at demonstrations isn’t a random symbol of liberal secular democracy but one based on pan-Arab national colors. In other words, it is very much an ethno-nationalist flag.

Unless one believes that no ethno-nationalist states should exist (and most countries are some form of an ethno-nationalist state), then there is no reason to believe that Jews shouldn’t have the same right to self-determination as any other group … unless they are an anti-Semite. Or, to put this in more precise terms, if one has no issue with ethno-nationalist states like Hungary, Croatia, Ireland, Turkey, Finland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Japan, Vietnam, etc., then one shouldn’t have an issue with a Jewish state.

Azizi also points out the fallacy of the so-called one-state solution, in which Israelis and Palestinians would live in a single, democratic state that is neither Zionist nor Palestinian. Such an arrangement would deny the national aspirations of both groups. Beyond that, after what we saw happen in October, can anyone imagine that Jews would feel safe (or actually be safe) in a Middle Eastern state that wasn’t Jewish?

What’s even more absurd is that 75 years after the creation of the state of Israel, we are still having these debates. When other countries get involved in wars or are attacked by terrorists, no one questions the legitimacy of the nations involved. Or perhaps I missed all the discussions about the Russian state being illegitimate even though they’ve quashed the nationalist aspirations of ethnic groups that reside within its territory (Chechnya, for example). But Israel has long been treated differently. Part of the reason is that a large segment of the Palestinian population refuses to acknowledge the validity of a Jewish state. Hamas has spent 30 years seeking to prevent a two-state solution and, to this day, a) refuses to recognize Israel and b) refers to Palestinian residents of Gaza as refugees — as if one day they can go back to their “homes” in Israel.

Israelis who are kicked out of their homes across the Arab world don’t consider themselves refugees or demand to return to their homes, just as Germans forced to live in Poland after World War II or Indians and Pakistanis who left their homes in 1949 aren’t considered refugees either. But because Hamas continues to act as though one day, what is today Israel will one day become all Palestine, we continue having these tiresome debates about anti-Zionism.

Anti-Zionism is Anti-Semitism, Part 2

Virtually every time over the past few years when I pointed out that anti-Israel rhetoric is often cloaked in anti-Semitic language and that it’s impossible to credibly argue that there are no links between hatred of Israel and hatred of Jews, I am regularly told that I am wrong. Claims of anti-Semitism are, or so the argument goes, used as a tool by pro-Israel voices to neutralize criticisms of Israel. While it’s true that sometimes that happens … here are a few stories that floated across my Twitter timeline over the past few days (nearly six weeks after more than 1,200 Jews were killed in Israel)

Again, it’s absolutely the case that not all criticisms of Israel are anti-Semitic. (I feel strongly about this point because I am a frequent critic of Israel’s policies!) But can we please stop with this line of argument? What is so striking about the past few weeks is how quickly criticism of Israel has devolved into attacks against Diaspora Jews and rank anti-Semitism. And to be sure, it happens virtually every time there is fighting in the Middle East — anti-Semites lump Jews and Israel together, and Diaspora Jews bear the brunt. It’s almost as if hatred of Jews was just beneath the surface for many critics of Israel, and the last few weeks have given people permission to let their anti-Semitic freak flag fly.

Speaking of which, it seems the owner of Twitter, aside from being a colossal asshole and a terrible businessman … is a Jew-hating bigot.

(This, by the way, echoes the Great Replacement Theory, which says Jews want to bring minorities into Western countries to disempower white people. It’s a theory espoused by the mass shooter who killed 11 people at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh in 2018).

All of this was completely predictable because a) anti-Semitism is one of the world’s oldest conspiracy theories, b) lies at the core of many Western societies, and c) criticism of Israel has always been informed, at least in some part, by anti-Semitism.

At this point, only the most blinkered, naive, or anti-Semitic would fail to see that.

A Chip In The Granite?

So this is kind of interesting …

In case you can’t read the small print, Nikki Haley is now at 17.8 percent in New Hampshire, well behind Trump at 45 percent, but she clearly has emerged from the pack as the closest competition to Trump for the Republican nomination. Ron DeSantis is now in fourth place in the Granite State, with Christie slightly ahead of him in third. What I find interesting about this is that for all of Trump’s national dominance, he’s under 50 percent in the early primary and caucus states.

Here’s the latest from Iowa:

Haley is moving up (14.3 percent), while DeSantis still gets 18 percent of the vote.

I don’t think this suggests the GOP race is tightening — Trump is still close to 50 percent in both states. But Haley seems to have some momentum. It makes you wonder what would happen if DeSantis and/or Christie (as well as the other marginal candidates) dropped out. Would their voters coalesce around Haley as the Trump alternative? If that happened in New Hampshire, based on recent polling, Haley would be within spitting distance of Trump (I’m not sure where DeSantis’s voters would go if he left the race, but I have to think Christie’s supporters are the least likely to back Trump).

One of the most apparent benefits that Trump has enjoyed in this race is that he’s facing a multi-candidate field. It’s one of the reasons he won in 2016 — the anti-Trump wing of the party split their voters in early voting states among several candidates. But this year, candidates are dropping like flies, so much so that it’s not inconceivable we’re down to 2-4 candidates by the time of the Iowa Caucus and New Hampshire primary. With Haley’s strong establishment support, maybe she creeps up enough in the polls to make the early states competitive, and then the race continues, as Trump is mired in court battles scheduled to begin in early March.

To be clear, the smart money is still on Trump, and he’s obviously the likely GOP nominee, but just something to think about.

Full On Sociopath

Getty Images