The danger of identity politics and cancel culture
As a progressive Zionist, I often find myself feeling horrified by the fringes of the progressive movement. Their combative, radical identity politics, purity politics, and “cancel culture” lead to absurdities that undermine the foundations of true progressivism: social justice and universal solidarity.
What’s more, their practice of the politics of exclusion runs counter to the coalition building and politics of addition that we sorely need right now. These are concepts that weaken the peace camp and create divisions that those on the right are all too eager to exploit.
For some of them, the very essence of Zionism is considered colonialist. This completely discounts history, the national connection of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel, and the right to self-determination of both the Palestinian people and the Jewish people.
Meanwhile, the dark irony is that somehow, right-wing political groups have managed to practice cancel culture, litmus tests, and extremism without paying a political price – and what’s more, have been able to paint their opponents as the main guilty parties.
These dynamics have surged to prominence following the success of Zohran Mamdani in the Democratic primaries for mayor of NYC. Specifically following Mr. Mamdani’s refusal to condemn a phrase used by the radical anti-Zionist ”left – “globalize the intifada,” a phrase that is interpreted by many as peaceful struggle but that many Jews and Israelis understandably associate with the violence and terror of the second intifada.
There’s a lot to be said here. First, it should be obvious that most New Yorkers don’t vote for mayor based on their positions on Israel-Palestine. Second, while I don’t share the views of Mamdani on Israel and Palestine, he is supported by many NYC Jews, including the Zionist comptroller of the city, Brad Lander. As Lander has said, Mr. Mamdani has repeatedly pushed back on antisemitism, said he understands it to be a real concern, and has outlined concrete plans and investments to keep Jewish New Yorkers safe.
But it must also be said that Mr. Mamdani’s failure to grapple with the concerns of our community about “globalizing the intifada” undermines that work. And the fringe online left’s insistence on embracing brash and divisive shock terminology undoubtedly hurts candidates like Mr. Mamdani from achieving broader mainstream appeal.
Despite all the noise about Mr. Mamdani’s win and what it means, it’s important for us in Israel to view this all in context. The extreme, online left makes a lot of noise and sometimes dominates the debate on social media, but in reality, they’re not representative of the Democratic Party or center-left American voters. In Congress, avowed anti-Zionists can be counted on one hand. It’s a small minority within a minority, even within the progressive caucus, and their public influence is limited. Polls indicate that most American Democrats, including a majority in the progressive camp, continue to support Israel’s security, even as sympathy for the Palestinian cause grows. Almost all members of the progressive caucus support Israel as the democratic homeland of the Jewish people and its right to protect itself against terror.
So why is this blown up as such an issue? One of the reasons is that fringe left radicals – real and imagined – often serve as a convenient excuse for the populist right’s propaganda, both in the U.S. and in Israel, which distorts reality and uses marginal phenomena to paint an entire camp.
The irony is that, in the populist right, identity politics, extreme rhetoric, and “cancel culture” are not located at the margins but at the very heart of the Republican and Likud parties. In the US, it’s Republicans advocating for people to be deported based on their political opinions, for schools to lose funding if they don’t teach from the MAGA gospel, and using the most extreme and hateful rhetoric. And in Israel, it’s the extreme right calling to unleash nuclear weapons in Gaza, to force millions from their homeland, and to starve a civilian population.
Identity politics became central weapons in the hands of the Right in Israel in the 1970s and 1980s. It was the Likud leader Menachem Begin who made use of identity politics to crack the hegemony of the Labor Movement and marked, among others, Kibbutz Manara – my birthplace – as a symbol of “kibbutznik” privilege and elitism. He grossly ignored the facts: My parents and their friends who established the kibbutz were idealistic pioneers who made their homes on the border of Lebanon, without infrastructure, facing numerous dangers, and should not be scorned for their success.
Presenting the “left” as disconnected and out of touch was successful. Too many in development towns began to identify politically with the right, even when their social positions leaned left. Serious mistakes were made by the Labor establishment towards immigrants from Arab countries, but through manipulation of identity and division, the political right turned the wound into a political platform.
Today, this line is continued by many Likud ministers, such as Dudi Amsalem, who portray the Israeli patriots fighting for democracy as a disconnected elite with “Rolex watches,” an accusation he made with a Cartier watch on his wrist. At the same time, Dr. Avishai Ben-Chaim, a TV celebrity, led a line of identity politics by spreading a destructive theory about “first and second Israel” and an implied justification for the anti-democratic actions of a leader who, in his eyes, is immune to any criticism.
The same use of identity politics is very prominent in the approach of the populist right in America, including the way they describe the intellectual ‘globalist’ elites – a not-so-subtle antisemitic dog whistle. Even worse is the continued repetition of the antisemitic “Great Replacement” theory, which blames Jews and others for trying to change America to be less white and Christian.
Ironically, “cancel culture,” which supposedly characterizes the left, is prominently present on the right. Accusations of antisemitism have become a systematic tool used by the Right in Israel and the US to silence any criticism of the Israeli government’s policies and their supporters. It is operated by institutional actors in Israel and in the American Jewish community and has reached its peak under the Trump administration, which uses allegations of antisemitism to incite against universities, immigrants, and liberal institutions.
It’s reached the point where, according to the definition of antisemitism by Jonathan Greenblatt, the CEO of the ADL, most American Jews and liberal Israelis like me are antisemites because of our strident opposition to the Netanyahu government and our support for Palestinian rights. It would be funny if it weren’t so harmful to the efforts to confront real antisemitism, which still exists and grows even worse.
The bottom line is that a marginal phenomenon in the progressive camp is presented as an existential threat, while more powerful and dangerous manifestations of populism are deeply rooted in the centers of power of the right-wing establishments. Understanding the true risk to justice and the future of democracy, both in Israel and the US, is crucial.