Israel’s actions are a favour to Europe – but don’t expect a thank you
Blame Hollywood if you like, but Britain has drifted into that cliché scene where by-standers beg the hero not to cut the red wire. This week’s by-standers are Cabinet ministers and assorted world leaders, panicked that Israeli pilots might finish the job on Iran’s nuclear programme. The talk is all about “de-escalation”, as though you can politely handcuff a centrifuge and hope it learns some manners. Yet the red wire in question is attached to Tehran’s nuclear-bomb-in-waiting, and – brace yourself – Israel is prepared to yank it out.NYT's Editorial: Antisemitism Is an Urgent Problem. Too Many People Are Making Excuses.
Let’s admit what the diplomatic communiqués whisper: Iran is not enriching uranium for a school science prize. The International Atomic Energy Agency counts hundreds of kilos sitting at 60 per cent, a couple of turns from weapons-grade. Strap that payload to an intermediate-range Shahab and the footprint stretches far beyond Tel Aviv to nearby Europe. If you want a working definition of “clear and present danger”, that’s it – especially when the regime boasts that its reach is now “continental”.
Meanwhile, every time you map the region’s misery you find Tehran’s fingerprints. Hezbollah’s missiles in Lebanon, Hamas’s tunnels in Gaza, Shia militias turning Iraqi highways into shooting galleries, Houthis lobbing drones across the Red Sea – each a franchise in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ terror food-court. Pay, train, arm, repeat. The ayatollahs have franchised terror into a geopolitical Deliveroo – dispatching proxy couriers who drop rockets on Israel and drones on Red Sea shipping.
Against that backdrop, the suggestion that Israel must be reined in feels almost zoological – like silencing the guard dog while the burglar assembles Semtex in the neighbourhood. Yes, Israel’s operations spark unease; a bombing run is nobody’s idea of diplomacy. But allowing Iran to complete its nuclear sprint would be more than an escalation: it would be a time-release calamity.
Israel’s pilots and engineers are, in effect, buying the civilised world time that sanctions, resolutions and strongly worded letters never could. Knocking out centrifuges today means fewer warheads tomorrow, and fewer warheads means no regional arms race in 2030. In the cold arithmetic of strategy, that is a favour to every European capital even if they’re too squeamish to send so much as a thank-you tweet.
Natan Sharansky, the former Soviet dissident, has suggested a “3D” test for when criticism of Israel crosses into antisemitism, with the D’s being delegitimization, demonization and double standards. Progressive rhetoric has regularly failed that test in recent years. “Americans generally have greater ability to identify Jew hatred when it comes from the hard right and less ability and comfort to call out Jew hatred when it comes from the hard left or radical Islamism,” said Rachel Fish, an adviser to Brandeis University’s Presidential Initiative on Antisemitism.Is The Simple Truth: ‘Progressives Hate Jews’?
Consider the double standard that leads to a fixation on Israel’s human rights record and little campus activism about the records of China, Russia, Sudan, Venezuela or almost any other country. Consider how often left-leaning groups suggest that the world’s one Jewish state should not exist and express admiration for Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis — Iran-backed terrorist groups that brag about murdering Jews. Consider how often people use “Zionist” as a slur — an echo of Soviet propaganda from the Cold War — and call for the exclusion of Zionists from public spaces. The definition of a Zionist is somebody who supports the existence of Israel.
Historical comparisons can also be instructive. The period since Oct. 7, 2023, is hardly the first time that global events have contributed to a surge in hate crimes against a specific group. Asian Americans were the victims in 2020 and 2021 after the Covid pandemic began in China. Muslim Americans were the victims after Sept. 11, 2001. In those periods, a few fringe voices, largely on the far right, tried to justify the hate, but the response from much of American society was denunciation. President George W. Bush visited a mosque on Sept. 17, 2001, and proclaimed, “Islam is peace.” During Covid, displays of Asian allyship filled social media.
Recent experience has been different in a couple of ways. One, the attacks against Jews have been even more numerous and violent, as the F.B.I. data shows. Two, the condemnation has been quieter and at times tellingly agonized. University leaders have often felt uncomfortable decrying antisemitism without also decrying Islamophobia. Islamophobia, to be clear, is a real problem that deserves attention on its own. Yet antisemitism seems to be a rare type of bigotry that some intellectuals are uncomfortable rebuking without caveat. After the Sept. 11 attacks, they did not feel the need to rebuke both Islamophobia and antisemitism. Nor should they have. People should be able to denounce a growing form of hatred without ritually denouncing other forms.
Alarmingly, the antisemitic rhetoric of both the political right and the left has filtered into justifications for violence. But there has been an asymmetry in recognizing the connections. After a gunman murdered 11 people at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh in 2018, observers correctly noted that he had become radicalized partly through racist right-wing social media. There has been a similar phenomenon in some recent attacks, this time with the assailants using the language of the left.
The man who burned marchers in Colorado shouted “Free Palestine!” and (awkwardly) “End Zionist!” The man charged with killing the young Israeli Embassy workers in Washington last month is suspected of having posted an online manifesto titled “Escalate for Gaza, Bring the War Home.” His supporters have since published a petition that includes “Globalize the Intifada.” The demonizing, delegitimizing rhetoric of the right bore some responsibility for the Pittsburgh massacre; the demonizing, delegitimizing rhetoric of the left bears some responsibility for the recent attacks.
Americans should be able to recognize the nuanced nature of many political debates while also recognizing that antisemitism has become an urgent problem. It is a different problem — and in many ways, a narrower one — than racism. Antisemitism has not produced shocking gaps in income, wealth and life expectancy in today’s America. Yet the new antisemitism has left Jewish Americans at a greater risk of being victimized by a hate crime than any other group. Many Jews live with fears that they never expected to experience in this country.
No political arguments or ideological context can justify that bigotry. The choice is between denouncing it fully and encouraging an even broader explosion of hate.
We all know the saying – and apparent truism – that there will be peace in the Middle East when the Palestinians start loving their children more than they hate the Jews. But it seems increasingly apparent to me that something similar applies to so-called “progressive politics”. Campaigning organizations might one day achieve their campaigning goals when they value those goals more than they hate the Jews.
Last week we saw the unedifying spectacle of Environmental Campaigner Greta Thunburg – who only a short while ago claimed the “climate emergency” was the biggest existential threat to the planet. Of course, it wasn’t so great an emergency that she couldn’t take time out from it to deliver some groceries to Gaza as if she were Tuesday’s ‘Hello Fresh’ drop-off driver.
The Israel-Iran war gives us a few new examples of where anti-Israel activism seems to override the urgency of primary campaigning. Almost all of these groups state that their values include human rights, democracy, rights and protections for women and sexual minorities, and so on. So when they appear to condemn Israel – a society where these values have legal force – over Iran – where these values are forced to their knees – is there any conclusion other than this one?
“Progressives hate Jews so much that they are willing to support a theocratic dictatorship that stands against almost all of their core values against a Jewish state which reflects most of those values.”
The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) apparently stands for a world free from the threat of nuclear war. So you’d think they’d be quite pleased when a mad theocracy on the verge of acquiring a nuclear bomb is stopped. But of course they aren’t.
“The British government must end its support for nuclear-armed Israel’s illegal war on Iran – a war based on lies used to justify attempts at regime change that risks widening a humanitarian catastrophe,” they raged.
Similarly, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) condemned Israel’s attacks on the grounds that attacking nuclear facilities might cause an environmental disaster. “Nuclear facilities must never be attacked,” scolded the agency head, Rafael Mariano Grossi. His organization is dedicated, they say, to “nuclear non-proliferation, disarmament, and to promote cooperation in peaceful uses of nuclear energy.”
Of course they don’t appear to have a plan to stop a rogue state weaponizing nuclear power other than to hope for the best while condemning any practical efforts to stop them. Perhaps they subscribe to the view formulated by President Barack Obama ten years ago. How’s that turning out?
