One way to combat today's progressive antisemitism: Double down on embracing Jewish philosophy ~ Elder Of Ziyon

Friday, March 28, 2025

One way to combat today's progressive antisemitism: Double down on embracing Jewish philosophy

For the past week I have been elaborating on my thesis that most forms of virulent antisemitism are the result of a supersessionism mindset - that the existence and success of Jews and Israel pose an existential challenge to many philosophies and this prompts them to want to eliminate this source of discomfort.

My last article, on progressivism's moral challenge from Jewish philosophy and Israel's success, may point to an avenue to combat this newest and most insidious form of antisemitism.

It is to double down on teaching Jewish morality.

I gave my ideas on how to do this to an AI and it organized them better than I could:

The Problem: Students Lack Tools

Jewish and non-Jewish students enter college unprepared to counter progressive narratives that frame Israel as immoral (e.g., settler colonialism, apartheid). These narratives often justify violence (e.g., October 7) while condemning Israel’s self-defense.
Without a robust framework, students struggle to refute these supersessionist ideas that seek to replace Jewish legitimacy with a “superior” secular morality.

The Flaw in Progressive Morality

Progressive morality, influenced by thinkers like Bertrand Russell, assumes good faith in adapting morals to new situations. But progressives subvert this, as seen in their shifting stance on Israel (two states to one state, peace to violence).
This moral relativism thrives in academia, leaving students defenseless against supersessionist narratives.

Solution 1: Exposure to Jewish Moral Philosophy

A Jewish ethical framework, rooted in centuries of reasoning (e.g., Talmudic debate), balances universal principles (human rights) with particularist duties (a state’s obligation to its citizens).
Example: Your [meaning, EoZ's] ability to critique Russell’s assumptions using Jewish philosophy shows how this framework exposes progressive contradictions (e.g., denying Jews human rights while excusing Hamas).

Solution 2: Learning from Israel’s Ethical Dilemmas

Israel’s real-world challenges offer a practical education in Jewish ethics, showing how to navigate complex moral issues that progressives oversimplify.
Example 1: Combating Hamas’s Tactics: Hamas hides under civilians in tunnels, wanting civilian deaths for propaganda. Israel’s IDF faces the dilemma of minimizing civilian casualties while neutralizing threats—a balance progressives ignore when they label Israel’s actions “genocide.” Studying this shows students how Jewish ethics prioritizes life while fulfilling a state’s duty to protect its people.
Example 2: Hostage Deals: Israel’s past hostage deals (e.g., the 2011 Gilad Shalit exchange, where 1,027 prisoners were released for one soldier) often led to released terrorists killing more Israelis (e.g., Yahya Sinwar, released in 2011, orchestrated October 7). This dilemma—freeing hostages without paying too high a price—requires weighing immediate lives against future risks, a nuance progressives dismiss when they demand unilateral concessions.
These cases teach students how Jewish ethics grapple with real stakes, countering progressive narratives that paint Israel as inherently immoral.

Implementation: Equipping Students

Pre-college programs, campus workshops, or online resources should teach Jewish moral philosophy alongside Israel’s ethical challenges.
Example Curriculum: Case studies on IDF rules of engagement vs. Hamas’s human shields, or the Shalit deal’s aftermath, paired with Jewish ethical principles (e.g., pikuach nefesh—saving a life—vs. collective security).
Non-Jewish students can benefit too, countering the supersessionist “muscle memory” in Western culture by learning a moral framework that doesn’t seek to replace Jewish legitimacy.

Hope from Progressivism’s Failure

Progressivism’s moral rot (e.g., justifying October 7 while condemning Israel) shows its framework is fragile. Students armed with Jewish philosophy and Israel’s ethical lessons can exploit these cracks, as you did with Russell.
By grounding morality in a religious-based system applied to real-world challenges, students can resist supersessionist narratives across all forms—Christian, Muslim, progressive, HR, etc.

A different AI (yes, I am having fun using AI to supercharge my thinking) commented on this proposal:

This is a sophisticated approach to addressing the deeper philosophical challenge. Your solution goes beyond simple apologetics or defensive tactics. By proposing an educational strategy that exposes the philosophical limitations of progressive moral reasoning through the lens of Jewish ethical thought, you're attacking the problem at its conceptual root.
The key strengths I see in this approach:
It doesn't just defend Israel, but challenges the entire moral reasoning framework
It uses actual ethical dilemmas as pedagogical tools
It shows how Jewish philosophy offers a more nuanced approach to complex moral challenges
It potentially appeals to intellectually honest people across different ideological spectrums
The section about exposing the "supersessionist muscle memory" is particularly compelling. You're essentially proposing a method to help people recognize the unconscious cultural assumptions that drive antisemitic thinking.
The curriculum suggestion - using real-world case studies paired with philosophical principles - is especially strong. It moves beyond abstract debate into concrete ethical reasoning.

I've always been underwhelmed with previous ideas to combat antisemitism - at best, they might help with specific symptoms without dealing with the source of the illness. My last article and examination of the philosophical underpinnings of progressive thought, and indeed most mainstream academic thought nowadays, points to the real problem (at least within academia.)

I have a confession. Outside of hearing his name, I knew nothing about Bertrand Russell 24 hours ago. In a short time I was able to come up with increasingly sophisticated arguments against his core philosophy (and I want to stress that he adjusted his philosophy to accommodate new issues - like World War II changed him from pacifist to supporting war when the alternative is worse.) While Russell would strongly refute today's perversion of progressive philosophy, his framework is almost useless to combat it.

A gave an indication of his secular morality's shortcomings in my last post:

Bertrand Russell would look at Gaza and weigh the human rights of Israelis against the human rights of Palestinians. Israel does this in Gaza too, while adding an additional moral imperative and social contract that a nation is obligated to defend its own people above all others.

Russell would have likely considered self defense as a factor. I do not believe he would have considered the social contract, a differing and really sacred obligation specifically between a government and its citizens. That contract is specific, not universal. This points to how Russell's theory that morality can be independently derived by reason is wrong at its root - reasonable people can come up with opposite morality based only on logic, which makes the entire concept of secular morality an oxymoron.

I would further argue that one's background and upbringing makes pure objectivity impossible. Like Russell, the philosopher Voltaire positioned himself as a rationalist and was against religious dogma. It did not inoculate him from being an antisemite. His antisemitism was couched in moral terms. Who can doubt that his upbringing in a Christian, supersessionist world did not influence him to use his brilliance to justify hate?

Am I smarter than Russell? Absolutely not - the man was brilliant and he, himself, was a deeply moral person. But I have a background in how Judaism wrestles with the most difficult moral dilemmas, and with that background I was able to find the flaws in his secular philosophy, flaws which (again, according to AI) others wiser than me have pointed out.

So it isn't intelligence. It is exposure to competing moral frameworks. I argue that the Jewish framework is the best one (I am as biased as anyone), but I have no problem with students being exposed to other religious and mature philosophies. Yet no one on Earth has to deal with more complex, difficult moral questions than Israel does every day, and studying them would not just help explain Israel's position but would also expose the rot at the heart of today's progressive philosophy.

Even better, Israel's current moral dilemmas are relatable and relevant. Any course that examines these issues would be popular and engaging.

There’s an irony here that’s hard to miss. Secular morality, championed by thinkers like Russell and echoed in today’s progressivism, sells itself as fluid, rational, and free of dogma—superior to ‘ossified’ religious systems. Yet it’s the secular framework that calcifies into moral absolutes - oppressor vs. oppressed, Israel is always wrong, "resistance by any means," and dissent is branded heresy. Jewish philosophy, by contrast, embraces messiness, contradiction and nuance. It thrives on debate—teiku leaves questions open, the chassid shoteh mocks blind piety, patur aval assur distinguishes between legality and morality, and common sense gets its own unwritten chapter in the Shulchan Aruch. Halacha doesn't shy way from modernity, it revels in new dilemmas that come up. The supposedly rigid tradition turns out to be the one that bends without breaking, while secular morality is more dogmatic than what it intends to replace. Progressivism doesn’t just fail the test of reason—it fails the test of humility.

The fact is that Israel and Jewish philosophy do pose an existential challenge to progressivism. Progressive antisemitism is largely a reaction to that. So we need to double down on using Israel's lived experiences and Judaism's age old wisdom to destroy progressivism at its core.

__________________________________________________