Antisemitism as Common Ground between Two Extremes
It’s easy to see the other side as the problem, until the reflection shows you might not be that different.
There’s a common misconception that the far right and the far left represent opposing extremes, that their ideologies are mutually exclusive and stand at opposite poles of political thought. But reality isn’t that simple. There is a disturbing grey area where these extremes converge, and one of the clearest meeting points is their shared hostility toward the Jewish people.
The hard truth to swallow is that the far right and the far left are not true antagonists. They are two sides of the same coin. Their ideologies may stem from opposite ends of the political spectrum, but they often arrive at the same conclusion. When it comes to the Jewish people, their hostility is expressed through different terminology, yet it echoes with striking similarity.
How the Far Right Rebranded Its Antisemitism
Antisemitism is not new. It has worn many faces throughout history, evolving with time but never disappearing. When it comes to far-right antisemitism, the most horrifying example remains Nazi Germany. In order to justify its actions, the regime propagated conspiracy theories about Jewish control, manipulation, and danger. These narratives still echo today. This case illustrates how unchecked hatred can rapidly take form and escalate, ultimately leading to the intentional extermination of millions of people simply for existing.
From Holocaust denial to chants like “Jews will not replace us,” the far right continues to cast Jewish people as a threat to national identity, to tradition, and to the imagined purity of the state. These ideas haven’t disappeared. They have simply adapted. You will find them today in neo-Nazi circles, online echo chambers, and in the speeches of populist leaders. The language may change, but the message is the same: that Jews are too powerful, too global, and too different to belong.
This form of antisemitism is blunt and unapologetic. It is rooted in racial hatred, built on centuries of scapegoating, and now amplified by modern digital platforms. Its structure may evolve, but its purpose remains constant. To dehumanize. To isolate.
The Far Left’s Selective Morality
It is the case of the far left, which sees itself as the moral compass of the world and claims to stand in total opposition to the far right, grounded in a supposed unique ethical awareness. But what is the point of claiming moral superiority when solidarity becomes selective?
The credibility of any social cause collapses the moment it chooses which victims matter. Why, in their eyes, are Palestinians more deserving of marches and outrage than Sudanese victims of genocide? Why was there no mass mobilization against the atrocities committed in Syria, or in support of the Alawite and Druze communities that were massacred? Why is there a deafening silence around conflicts and suffering across Africa?
These are not gaps in awareness. They are intentional exclusions.
Far-left extremists claim to separate themselves from the aggressor, but that separation is a political calculation, not a moral principle.
Since the start of the war, I’ve seen both far-right and far-left voices come together in their hostility toward Israel. The way they talk might be different, but the message is often loud, one-sided, and missing any real sense of moral clarity.
As much as the far left tries to distance itself from the far right, it has failed to recognize its own double standards and selective morality. The very same traits it claims to condemn.
The Reflection Shows the Same Face
Look closely, and the reflection becomes clear. The far right and the far left both see the same distorted image of the Jewish people. One blames them for moral decay and global conspiracies. The other sees them as symbols of colonialism and privilege. The slogans may change, but the target stays the same.
What unites these extremes is not conviction, but projection. And too often, Jews are the screen they cast it on.
Where We Draw the Line
Antisemitism must be named and rejected, no matter its source. In moments like these, clarity is not optional. Selective morality is one of the most dangerous weapons in hatred’s arsenal, and Jews are too often its test case. Hatred offers no high ground. Only clarity or complicity.
