Wednesday, September 30, 2026
Elder of Ziyon
I have been writing about how the current epistemic environment has been twisting facts into anti-Zionism. The Democratic candidate for the senate in Maine just illustrated it as perfectly as possible, and extended it to classic antisemitism as well.
Maine Democratic Senate candidate Troy Jackson , while discussing Jewish Mainers who reject the claim that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza, said said it was “unfortunate” that there are people in Maine who do not like to use that term “only because they’re Jewish and what that means to them, with the Holocaust.” He then reaffirmed his own conclusion: what Israel is doing “fits that description” and “is a genocide.”
Notice the evidence he brings for "genocide." He doesn't. He takes a word that has been misused and extended beyond its own legal definition and treats it as undeniable.
Therefore, the Jews who disagree (again, because he doesn't know what genocide is) cannot possibly legitimate reasons for their position. No, it must be because they are unfortunately Jewish.
Their Jewish identity is the problem, not their logic.
He doesn't consider that perhaps they disagree on the definition of the term. They cannot possibly believe the evidence does not establish specific genocidal intent, think competing explanations fit the evidence better, or simply remain uncertain. A normal epistemic process leaves those possibilities open and engages the arguments themselves.
Jackson instead attributes their disagreement to their identity.
They reject his conclusion “only because they’re Jewish” and because of what the Holocaust means to them. Their objection therefore ceases to function as possible counterevidence and becomes evidence of their supposed bias. The conclusion remains fixed; the only question becomes why Jews cannot see what Jackson regards as obvious.
That is exactly how a self-protecting epistemic environment works. Once “Israel is committing genocide” has become background knowledge rather than a proposition still requiring demonstration, dissent no longer has to be answered on its merits. The dissenter can instead be psychologically or socially explained: Jewish, Zionist, emotionally invested, unable to see clearly because of historical trauma. Evidence turns into armchair psychology.
This is antisemitism. Jackson doesn't consider Jews who disagree with the genocide conclusion as having a valid point that must be answered. Their Jewishness is itself the only evidence he needs to discount their opinions.
Jewish testimony about an accusation against the Jewish state receives a credibility discount because the speakers are Jewish.
There is also a striking asymmetry in Jackson’s explanation. He assumes that Jewish identity explains why Jews might reject the genocide label, but does not ask whether political identity might help explain why he accepts it to begin with. It sure isn't evidence-based.
Jackson presumably meant to explain Jewish sensitivity to the word “genocide.” What he ended up illustrating is something more revealing: once the conclusion is treated as settled, identity can be used to explain away the people who refuse to accept it.
And while he was at it he also demonstrated that for many on the progressive Left, there is no line between anti-Zionism and antisemitism.
What a perfect candidate to replace the guy with the Nazi tattoo.
